With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". trial.” Zenchak v. Kaeufer, 612 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Evidence related to such prior claims is admissible because it is “relevant to determin[ing] the credibility of the [plaintiffs] testimony” regarding injuries sustained in a subsequent accident for which suit is brought. Id. As the court explained in Zabner: [A] plaintiff may properly be cross[-]examined as to his previous injuries, physical condition, claims[,] or actions for injuries similar to that constituting the basis of the present action for the purpose of showing that his present physical condition is not the result of the injury presently sued for but was caused wholly or partially by an earlier injury or pre-existing condition. 227 So.2d at 545. See also Hicks v. Daymude, 190 So.2d 6, 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) (<HOLDING>); cf. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Poling, 823

A: holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination
B: holding that a person is a citizen of the state in which she has her domicile ie a permanent home where she intends to remain or to which she intends to return
C: holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex
D: holding that plaintiff was properly confronted with her answers to questions in a deposition taken in an earlier suit in which she admitted a prior  incident in which she had fallen
D.