With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for compensation due to an allegedly com-pensable consequence of a work-related injury. The issue before the Board was not merely whether and to what extent Claimant was permanently disabled, but also whether the disability was a result of the work injury. Employer’s position was that the work injury could not have caused any brain injury or psychiatric disability and that Claimant’s ongoing condition was caused by the 1975 injury and other personal and/or psychological stresses. Thus, whether the cause of Claimant’s permanent disability was work-related was clearly at issue in the proceedings, and the HRS § 386-85 presumptions applied. See Korsak, 94 Hawai'i at 307, 12 P.3d at 1248; see also Acoustic, Insulation & Drywall, Inc. v. LIRAB, 51 Haw. 312, 317, 459 P.2d 541, 544 (1969) (<HOLDING>), reh’g denied, 51 Haw. 632, 466 P.2d 439

A: holding the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant claiming selfdefense had no duty to retreat
B: holding that circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the statutory presumptions where the issue was whether the physical exertions of the claimants job aggravated or contributed to his heart condition
C: holding that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could find constructive notice from evidence that the defendants knew of a recurring dangerous condition
D: holding that the district court erred in failing to properly charge the jury on defendants affirmative defenses
B.