With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for alleged misconduct in processing claims); Peterson v. Weinberger, 508 F.2d 45, 51-52 (5th Cir.1975) (sovereign immunity applied to claim of alleged wrongful suspension of payments for fraud); Pine View Gardens, Inc. v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 485 F.2d 1073, 1074-75 (D.C.Cir.1973) (claim for unpaid benefits barred by sovereign immunity). Fewer circuit courts have decided the issue of whether fiscal intermediaries and carriers are entitled to official immunity for discretionary acts taken within the scope of their authority under the Medicare Act. See, e.g., Bushman v. Seiler, 755 F.2d 653, 655-56 (8th Cir.1985) (official immunity granted to consultant of Medicare carrier for reporting fraud to carrier); Peterson v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 508 F.2d 55, 58 (5th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). Several district courts, however, have held

A: holding that carrier was entitled to intervene as of right where the states workers compensation law permitted subrogation of a compensation carrier
B: holding by implication that employee of both fiscal intermediary and carrier was entitled to official immunity in connection with suspension of payments for fraud
C: holding that attorney who was retained by city to assist in conducting official investigation into firefighters potential wrongdoing was entitled to qualified immunity in firefighters  1983 claim because official investigation of state employee was activity of the type entitled to qualified immunity
D: holding that defendants were entitled to official immunity and not addressing the merits
B.