With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at issue may properly be excluded from evidence. Indeed, such evidence ordinarily would be inadmissible because it simply would not be relevant to the issues of liability or damages being tried. See § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2001) (“Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.”). The fact that a plaintiff has sought or received workers’ compensation or other benefits for events unrelated to the claim at issue generally would not “tend[] to prove or disprove a material fact” and thus should have no bearing on a jury’s determination of that claim. It is well established that evidence of prior claims or benefits cannot properly be adduced to discredit the plaintiff for litigiousness. See Zabner v. Howard Johnson’s Inc., 227 So.2d 543, 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (<HOLDING>). The amount of a settlement or judgment for a

A: holding that the optional character of the contract at issue is vicious in itself and not warranted by that clause in the statute which authorizes the creation and issue of new stock
B: holding that issue in motion for rehearing is waived if original brief is not sufficient to acquaint the court with the issue and does not present an argument that would allow the court to decide the issue
C: holding that plaintiffs character as being litigious is certainly not in issue
D: holding that the nature or character test set forth in code  192231 applies to both indictments and warrants and that since the amendment at issue in the case did not change the nature or character of the offense charged  the trial court did not err in allowing the trial to proceed on the amended warrant
C.