With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Judge. State Farm appeals an order denying its motion for new trial and the final judgment of $64,294.97 entered in favor of Nathan L. Goff in this personal injury action. The jury awarded Mr. Goff $27,326.32 in future medical expenses, and he cross-appeals the set-off from that award of $23,424.52, which represents his unused personal injury protection (PIP) and medical payment benefits. We affirm the denial of State Farm’s motion for new trial without discussion but reverse that portion of the final judgment providing for set-off of future PIP and medical benefits. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rudnick, 761 So.2d 289, 293 (Fla.2000); Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So.2d 294, 301 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). On remand, the court must determine the

A: holding that the consideration of the fact that claimant collected unemployment benefits while he was allegedly disabled was not a ground for reversal where there was other medical and vocational evidence supporting denial of benefits and claimants receipt of unemployment benefits was not decisive factor in denial of benefits
B: holding that unused pip and medical benefits should not be automatically setoff against jury verdicts the verdict should only be reduced by the amount of benefits already paid and unused benefits due and owing on the date the judgment is entered
C: holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa
D: holding that circuit court could assess attorneys fees against contemptuous employer for violating order to pay medical benefits but the fees would be separate and additional to the medical benefits awarded and not based on a percentage of those benefits but on the reasonable amounts incurred by employee in enforcing order
B.