With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Attorneys Guild v. State, 653 So.2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“When the constitutionality of a statute is a mixed question of law and fact, involving the existence of valid reasons for the legislation, it is preferable to have a record developed in a lower court before a finder of fact.”). And both the Florida Supreme Court and this court have rejected constitutional arguments for lack of evidence. See Cox v. Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 656 So.2d 902 (Fla.1995) (remanding case on ground eviden-tiary record was insufficient to support Second District’s holding that equal protection rights were not violated by statute precluding petitioner from adopting child because petitioner was gay); Khoury v. Carvel Homes S., Inc., 403 So.2d 1043, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude the JCC

A: holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim
B: holding that in absence of statute prohibiting recovery claimant may receive workers compensation and unemployment benefits simultaneously
C: holding workers compensation claimant failed to prove statute requiring jccs approval for payment of attorneys fees was inadequate to achieve legitimate state interest in protecting workers
D: holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act
C.