With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Thus, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s .judgment awarding TTD benefits to the extent that that award violated § 25-5-68(e), and we remand the cause, for the recalculation of those benefits in compliance with the Act based upon the average weekly wage at the time of the incident made the basis of the employee’s claim under, the Act. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P.J., and Thomas, Moore, and Donaldson, JJ., concur. 1 . Although the employer filed a mandamus petition on January 26, 2016, which would have been outside the presumptively reasonable time for seeking review of the trial court’s September 16, 2015, ruling via a petition for an extraordinary writ, see Ex parte Troutman Sanders, LLP, 866 So.2d 547, 548-50 (Ala.2003) (<HOLDING>), this court concluded that the judgment

A: recognizing that both final and nonfinal orders may be the subject of motions for reconsideration
B: holding that motions requesting reconsideration of interlocutory orders do not toll the time for seeking review under rule 21 ala r app p
C: holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal
D: holding that successive new trial or jnov motions do not toll the time for serving the notice of appeal
B.