With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". entity ....” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) (2003). 2 . Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 24 (2003). 3 . In Count III of the State Complaint, Gomes named his employer, Ever Ready Trucking, Inc., and two of its principals as co-defendants, liable to Gomes for wrongful termination. That Count and those defendants were subsequently dismissed from the State Court action. 4 . Mass. General Laws ch. 152, § 24 acts as a waiver under the Worker's Compensation Act of any covered worker’s common law rights against his/her employer or co-workers for injuries sustained in furtherance of the employer's interests or in the course of employment, so-called compensable injuries. Doe v. Purity Supreme, Inc., 422 Mass. 563, 664 N.E.2d 815 (1996); cf. O’Connell v. Chasdi, 400 Mass. 686, 690, 511 N.E.2d 349, 351 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Gomes never filed a claim under the Act

A: holding intentional assault by coworker to be outside the course and scope of employment
B: holding that where a coworker commits an intentional tort not related to the interests of the employer  the policies behind the act would not be served by immunizing the coemployee
C: holding that an employer who commits an intentional tort against his employee cannot claim that the act was accidental so that workers compensation is the employees exclusive remedy
D: recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence
B.