With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for Dr. Crabtree’s ultimate post-award refusal to continue the counseling relationship by threatening to sue Dr. Crabtree and press charges against him before the licensing board. The District Court’s statement that the arbitrator could not address the reasons for the breakdown in the counseling relationship upon remand could be understood as a direction to the arbitrator not to consider the Hospital’s contention. We see no legal reason why the arbitrator, who will be advised of the contingency that has rendered the award ambiguous, should not also be able to hear the Hospital’s explanation for the breakdown in the counseling relationship, if he so chooses. The District Court’s statement may be interpreted as a judicial determination of the appropriate procedures to be u 48-49 (<HOLDING>). We conclude, therefore, that nothing in

A: holding that district court erred in issuing injunction against future work stoppages based on arbitral award prohibiting one such stoppage
B: holding that district court erred in ruling that a particular item of evidence must be admitted in the arbitral proceeding
C: holding that the district court erred in ruling that a plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence to survive summary judgment on its discrimination claim where the district court had simply discounted plaintiffs admissible evidence as less probative than defendants
D: holding the district court erred by reviewing the evidence and making an evidentiary ruling on secondtier review
B.