With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and the Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings that was in force at the time of the parties’ due process hearing. Under that agreement, the hearing officer’s decision should have been issued within thirty days of the close of evidence. Given that evidence in this case closed on May 12, 2006, the hearing officer’s decision would ordinarily have been due on June 12, 2006. Parents point to several out-of-circuit cases to support their claim for “interim” relief. Although the stay-put provision does not directly authorize reimbursement for pre-decision expenses, courts may rely on the broad discretion contained in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C) to require reimbursement if a hearing officer’s decision is inappropriately delayed. Cf. Sch. Comm. of Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369, 105 S.Ct. 1996 (<HOLDING>). For example, in Mackey ex rel. Thomas M. v.

A: holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator
B: holding that district courts discretion is extremely broad
C: recognizing the broad power of federal courts to fashion appropriate relief
D: holding that the idea grants district courts broad discretion to craft appropriate relief
D.