With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Michigan Court of Appeals even held that a claim that the defendant terminated the plaintiffs workers’1 compensation benefits to coerce the plaintiff into accepting a lump-sum payment that he had previously refused failed to state the requisite “extreme and outrageous” conduct and, thus, failed to state an IIED claim. 142 Mich. App. 632, 634, 639, 369 N.W.2d 860 (1985). In Lisecki v. Taco Bell Restaurants, Inc., the Court of Appeals held that “[t]he facts in Hajciar were essentially identical to those presented here, i.e., an allegation by the plaintiff that ... [the defendant] wrongfully terminated [his compensation benefits] ... to further some ulterior motive of the defendants rather than due to the plaintiffs” non-entitlement to those benefits. 150 Mich.App. at 755, 389 N.W.2d 173 (<HOLDING>).' According to the Court, “such conduct simply

A: holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement
B: holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work
C: holding so where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had colluded to claim falsely that the plaintiffs physician had informed the claims adjuster that the plaintiff had been released to work and where the plaintiff was later discharged from employment and denied workers compensation benefits
D: holding that plaintiff had not stated an equal protection claim where plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant treated him differently from anyone else who both had problems with alcohol and had been arrested
C.