With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ins. Co., 88 F.Supp.2d 567, 572 (E.D.Pa.2000). As stated in Williams, “while liability was clear, the value of plaintiffs claim was not, and therefore [the defendant] acted reasonably in undertaking an investigation of the claim.” Id. In determining loss of earning capacity, the consideration “is not solely the comparative amount of money earned before and after an accident. The test is whether there is a loss of earning power and of the ability to earn money.” Williams v. Dulaney, 331 Pa.Super. 373, 480 A.2d 1080, 1087 (1984) (citations omitted). Therefore, an injured plaintiff may recover for loss of future earning capacity even if he does not suffer reduced earnings immediately after the injury. Id.; see also Sherman v. Mfrs. Light & Heat Co., 389 Pa. 61, 64, 132 A.2d 255 (1957) (<HOLDING>); Hrabak v. Hummel, 55 F.Supp. 775, 779

A: holding that noncompetitors injury was an antitrust injury as it was inextricably intertwined with the injury the conspirators sought to inflict
B: holding that if an injury is unexpected from the workers point of view it qualifies as an injury by accident
C: holding that plaintiffs earnings subsequent to injury as compared with his earnings at time of injury are merely evidence but not conclusive evidence as to whether his earning power has been diminished by the accident
D: holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
C.