With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". State v. Nelson, 577 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978). Accordingly, we hold that § 241(a)(2) controls over the provisions of § 231 to the extent the two statutes conflict. A petition under § 241(a)(2) is not prohibited in a case where the original workers’ compensation award sought to be enlarged was paid in lump sum. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Mr. Brewer suffered increased pain while working and was unable to continue working in June of 1994. He was referred to Dr. Allen who performed a myelogram in September of 1994 The results of the myelogram revealed a “large recurrent disc rupture at the L4-5 level.” Accordingly, the full nature and extent of his injury was not manifested until Dr. Allen discovered the ruptured disc. See Union Carbide Corp. v. Cannon, 523 S.W.2d 360 (Tenn.1975) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Brewer’s statute of limitations for a new

A: holding limitations period began to accrue upon discovery of the herniated disc and not from the date of the accident
B: holding that limitations period on employment discrimination claim triggered on date of discharge not on date of discovery of discriminatory intent
C: holding that the date on which the plaintiff learned of the defendants denial of tenure not the date on which the plaintiff became unemployed was when the statute of limitations began to run
D: holding that the statute of limitations period for a section 1983 claim seeking to redress an unlawful taking of property began to accrue on the date of the wrongful appropriation
A.