With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Houston v. Rhule, 417 S.W.3d 440, 442 (Tex.2013) (“Absent exhaustion of administrative remedies, a trial court must dismiss the case.”). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral arguments, we con 381 S.W.3d 583, 585-87 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2012, no pet.) (applying Rut-tiger to hold that the Act precludes claims for common-law bad faith, statutory bad faith, fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud based on allegations that carrier delayed paying benefits and concealed the nature of its relationship with reviewing doctor because the claims related to "the manner in which the carrier had handled the processing of [the] workers' compensation claim”). 5 . At least two courts of appeals have reached this same conclusion. See Hopper, 2013 WL 5853747, at *1, 4 (<HOLDING>); Bean, 2012 WL 5450826, at *1 (holding that

A: holding that ruttiger eliminates claims because there is no evidence of any conduct that does not implicate the claimsettlement process and all claims are limited to complaints about delays claim handling and disputes regarding entitlement to benefits
B: holding that defendants claiming qualified immunity to  1983 action were entitled to summary judgment where factual disputes were not material
C: holding that carrier was entitled to summary judgment on claim regarding false statements that claimants were not entitled to coverage because the claim was limited to complaints about delays claim handling and disputes regarding entitlement to benefits
D: holding that the plaintiff had established an entitlement to relief on the merits of the claim  and was therefore entitled to fees even though it was remanded to the agency for further action
C.