With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". deficiencies as to Mason. We overrule appellant’s second issue. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 . Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351 (Vernon 2011). 2 . Defendants asserted that all of Haskell's claims were, in fact, health-care-liability claims governed by section 74.351 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Haskell disputed this assertion. The trial court, however, determined that all of Haskell’s claims were health-care-liability claims and were governed by section 74.351. Haskell has not challenged this determination on appeal. Accordingly, for purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that Haskell’s claims are governed by section 74.351. See Zamarron v. Shinko Wire Co., 125 S.W.3d 132, 139 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)

A: holding courts do not consider points not raised in briefs
B: recognizing that we lack jurisdiction to consider issues not raised in the parties briefs
C: holding that issues not clearly raised in initial briefs are considered abandoned
D: holding that the court of appeals is without jurisdiction to consider points not squarely raised before the bia
A.