Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The E/C also argues that the JCC erred by reserving jurisdiction on “claims” for workers’ compensation benefits that were not listed on any petition for benefits (PFB) filed by the injured employee (Claimant). We affirm the rejection of the partial affirmative defense without comment, but modify the order on appeal by striking the reservation of jurisdiction over any claims that were not the subject of a pending PFB at the time of the final hearing. This court has previously held that a JCC may properly reserve jurisdiction over PFBs that have been filed, but not mediated, because mediation is mandatory under section 440.25(2), Florida Statutes; such unmediated claims are not procedurally ripe for adjudication. Parodi v. Fl. Contracting Co., Inc., 16 So.3d 958, 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ; see also Ake v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 112 So.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding jcc properly reserved jurisdiction on unmediated pfbs
B. holding that the district court properly predicated jurisdiction on  1361
C. holding order in dependency proceeding was nonfinal where order reserved jurisdiction to determine integrallyrelated visitation and support issues
D. holding order was nonfinal where order reserved jurisdiction to determine integrallyrelated visitation and child support issues
E. holding jcc has subject matter jurisdiction over discovery requests filed by injured worker who is pursuing benefits even before pfb is filed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.