With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the plan, should not be considered on the question of whether substantial evidence supports the board's decision to uphold the RBA's approval of the plan. Accordingly we consider the point waived. State v. Beard, 960 P.2d 1, 9 (Alaska 1998) (arguments raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing are considered waived). 11 . Boslough cites some testimony by Rockney suggesting that his rehabilitation specialist was "working" with school counselors to txy to cram the math class into one of the six semesters covered by the plan. But we think that Rock-ney’s testimony as a whole does not constitute substantial evidence that Rockney would have succeeded in completing the course work over six semesters. 12 . Because .we reverse the approval of the pl , 504-05 (Alaska 1973) (<HOLDING>); Thornton v. Alaska Workmen's Comp. Bd., 411

A: holding that rico claims were personal and plaintiffs were therefore entitled to sue on their own because their injuries were distinct from the injuries to creditors in general resulting from the diversion of corporate assets
B: holding that injuries suffered by laborers are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act
C: holding that psychiatric symptoms resulting in disability from work flowed from injuries received in primary accident and were compensable
D: holding injuries suffered on trip for business and pleasure were compensable
D.