With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". So.2d 103, 109-10 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 494 So.2d 334 (La.1986). Stated differently, "statutes enacted after the acquisition of such a vested property right ... cannot be retroactively applied so as to divest the plaintiff of his vested right in his cause of action because such a retroactive application would contravene the due process guaranties.” Faucheaux, 470 So.2d at 879. 599 So.2d at 1063-64. The Cole court also recognized that "it is well settled that [the] 1976 amendment prohibiting executive officer suits cannot be retroactively applied to divest parties whose causes of action accrued before the amendment was enacted.” 599 So.2d at 1064, n. 16 (collecting cases and authorities). See also Gautreaux v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 96-2193 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/27/96), 694 So.2d 977 (<HOLDING>). 5 .The issue presently before us is one of

A: holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act
B: holding that a claim did not arise under a workers compensation law when it stated a right to relief in tort and sought common law damages distinct from statutory compensation scheme
C: holding that it is not
D: holding that asbestos was not a listed substance in larevstat 2310311 prior to 1975 such that when it caused disease it was covered by workers compensation
D.