With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying all claims on statute of limitations grounds. Claimant raises two points on appeal. We affirm the argument that entry of a prior order requiring the Employer/Carrier (E/C) to pay a bill revived the claim despite the statute of limitations, as that argument was not preserved for appellate review, and, even if preserved, would lack merit. See Medpartners/Diagnostic Clinic Med. Group, P.A. v. Zenith Ins. Co., 23 So.3d 202, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>); cf. Dixie Transp., Inc. v. Kellom, 507 So.2d

A: holding that once the workers compensation act provides a remedy it is exclusive and the employee has no right to bring an action in commonlaw negligence against his employer
B: holding that a sealed indictment handed down before statute of limitations has run is valid even if it is not unsealed until after the limitations period has expired
C: holding 1994 amendments to workers compensation law preclude revival of limitations period once it has run
D: recognizing that revival causes the statute of limitations clock to run anew
C.