With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". are dismissed, the JCC loses jurisdiction to address those claims. ‘Such dismissal divests a JCC of jurisdiction to take any further action in the ease.’ ” Cova v. Ostfeld, 994 So.2d 1162, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting Perez v. Winn-Dixie, 639 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). The particular facts of this case distinguish it from the cases the Respondents cite; in which a; JCC’s jurisdiction exists or continues in the absence of a pending PFB. See, e.g., Southeastern Utils. Serv. Co. v. Redding, 131 So.2d 1 (Fla.1961) (permitting deposition of injured worker when carrier was voluntarily providing benefits, worker was accepting them, and worker subsequently filed formal claim for benefits); Covell v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 118 So.3d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>); Shannon v. Cheney Bros. Inc., 98 So.3d 1228

A: holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties
B: holding that the district court has broad authority to take jurisdiction over a matter even when that matter is not brought by a real party in interest
C: holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court
D: holding jcc has subject matter jurisdiction over discovery requests filed by injured worker who is pursuing benefits even before pfb is filed
D.