With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". program if the claimant has a reason that would cause a reasonably prudent person to refuse to attend the rehabilitation program under the same or similar circumstances.” Whether a claimant has “good cause” under the statute is determined under an objective, reasonable person standard. See Hoffman, at ¶ 15. [¶ 15] Just as the Bureau has the burden of establishing that a rehabilitation plan is appropriate, see Paul, 2002 ND 96, ¶ 8, 644 N.W.2d 884, the Bureau also has the burden of showing noncompliance with a rehabilitation plan. Once the Bureau establishes noncompliance, it becomes the claimant’s burden to establish good cause for noncompliance. See Fuhrman, 1997 ND 191, ¶ 7, 569 N.W.2d 269; compare Wright v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 2001 ND 72, ¶ 25, 625 N.W.2d 256 (<HOLDING>); Maginn v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau,

A: holding claimant has burden of demonstrating a good faith work search
B: holding that while the creditor has the initial burden to produce some evidence of lack of good faith the ultimate burden is on the debtor to prove his good faith
C: holding that the party asserting notice error has the burden of demonstrating prejudice
D: holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant
A.