With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be completed beforehand. Dallas County v. Coskey, 247 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied). We agree that Section 311.034 does not apply to the post-suit notice requirements of Section 89.0041. See Tex.Loc.Gov’t Code Ann. § 89.004; Coskey, 247 S.W.3d at 755-56. Moreover, legislative intent to make Section 89.004 jurisdictional could have been provided for by statute in light of the apparent inconsistency between Section 89.0041 and Section 311.034. It is not this Court’s job to insert words in a statute when the word is absent. Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656, 659 (Tex.1995). Other courts have followed the same line of reasoning set out in Coskey. See County of Bexar v. Bruton, 256 S.W.3d 345, 349 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 281 S.W.3d

A: holding that the ftcas exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional
B: holding that issue exhaustion is mandatory even if not a statutory jurisdictional requirement
C: holding that section 890041 is not a jurisdictional requirement rather a requirement to maintain suit
D: recognizing that issue exhaustion is a mandatory although not jurisdictional requirement
C.