With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". James Financial Services, Inc., 2013 WL 489088 at *3, n. 2 (M.D.Fla. Feb. 8, 2013) (recognizing existence of fraudulent concealment tolling doctrine but finding that plaintiff did not properly allege all elements). The Florida Supreme Court previously held that the fraudulent concealment doctrine no longer existed, and that the only viable tolling doctrines were enumerated in Fla. Stat. § 95.051; however the court subsequently withdrew that opinion. See Fulton County Admin. v. Sullivan, 1997 WL 589312 (Fla. Sept. 25, 1997), withdrawn and superseded by 753 So.2d 549 (Fla.1999). As such, there is no definitive law on this subject in Florida, and this Court will not create new law and hold that the doctrine does not apply. Cf. Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Both Weaver and Beacon also mention in

A: holding that employer was estopped to assert a statute of limitations defense where the insurer had arranged to have the claimant examined by one of its physicians after the statute of limitations had run
B: holding that defendants may be estopped from raising defense of statute of limitations even though equitable estoppel is not listed in fla stat  95051
C: holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel
D: holding nursing home estopped from raising statute of limitations defense when it stipulated to sixtyday extension of presuit screening period
B.