With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 440.13(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). A “dispute” was read “to mean a legal dispute cognizable under the Florida Worker’s [sic] Compensation Law.” Lehoullier, 43 So.3d at 836. The Lehoullier court concluded there was no “dispute” between the parties because Claimant had not requested any benefit or medical treatment that the E/C declined to provide. Contrary to the E/C’s argument, it did not demonstrate a dispute by expressing concern over Claimant’s progress with the physician it authorized to treat Claimant’s injuries. To create a dispute concerning medical benefits, an E/C is required to deny a claimant’s request for medical benefits. Simply expressing unilateral speculative concerns over a claimant’s progress with an authorized physician is insufficient. See Zabik, 911 So.2d at 859 (<HOLDING>). Id. (emphasis added). Here, the relevant

A: holding that a claimants failure to lose weight does not constitute a refusal to follow the treatment
B: holding ecs speculative but unrealized concern over claimants psychiatric condition insufficient to constitute dispute warranting ime
C: holding that bare psychiatric expert opinion of potential danger to others insufficient to support commitment
D: holding that a medical experts speculative testimony was an insufficient basis for a wcjs finding of fact
B.