With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 52 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) and Richardson v. Missouri State Treasurer, 254 S.W.3d 242 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) provide the proper framework for analyzing this case. In Highley, we held unsupported by competent and substantial evidence the Commission’s finding that the claimant’s last injury combined with her prior disabilities did not render her unemployable in the open labor market. Highley, 247 S.W.3d at 56. We declined to apply the so-called Alexander rule in Highley because we concluded that the Commission did not make a credibility determination when it failed to resolve differences in the evidence in favor of the testimony of a particular expert, and instead merely pointed out “flaws” in the expert testimony. Id. at 57; see also Corp v. Joplin Cement Co., 337 S.W.2d 252, 258 (Mo.1960) (<HOLDING>). Richardson expands upon Highley and

A: holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case
B: holding that where the record reveals no conflict in the evidence or impeachment of any witness the reviewing court may find the award was not based upon disbelief of the testimony of the witnesses
C: holding that expert testimony on effect of drug abuse on witness memory would intrude upon the jurys role in assessing witness credibility only because the defendant had not put forth any evidence to show that the witnesses actually used drugs and that thus there was no factual link between the experts testimony and the specific witnesses
D: holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion
B.