With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. at 961. Hall further recognized that the Sixth Circuit has been inconsistent in its treatment of Greeley claims predicated on § 4123.90 and that the court of appeals has not issued a controlling opinion on the issue. Id. at 961-63. This Court, agreeing with the rationale presented in Hall, similarly concludes that such a claim is cognizable and that the jeopardy requirement is satisfied. See id. at 963. The end result of such a holding obviates the apparent injustice the Court noted above in recognizing the narrow scope of § 4123.90, because an employee who is discharged prior to pursuing a workers’ compensation claim possesses a remedy when that discharge is predicated on absences retroactively covered by workers’ compensation. Cf. Boyd, 133 Ohio App.3d at 161, 727 N.E.2d at 144 (<HOLDING>). In summary, then, this Court concludes that

A: recognizing public policy claim associated with  412390 precoolidge and stating that there is no evidence that the legislature intended relief under   412390 to be exclusive
B: recognizing that the legislature sets public policy to be enforced by the courts in the absence of constitutional infirmity
C: recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct
D: holding a pervasive regulatory scheme shows that the legislature intended the administrative remedy to be exclusive
A.