are dismissed, the JCC loses jurisdiction to address those claims. ‘Such dismissal divests a JCC of jurisdiction to take any further action in the ease.’ ” Cova v. Ostfeld, 994 So.2d 1162, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting Perez v. Winn-Dixie, 639 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). The particular facts of this case distinguish it from the cases the Respondents cite; in which a; JCC’s jurisdiction exists or continues in the absence of a pending PFB. See, e.g., Southeastern Utils. Serv. Co. v. Redding, 131 So.2d 1 (Fla.1961) (permitting deposition of injured worker when carrier was voluntarily providing benefits, worker was accepting them, and worker subsequently filed formal claim for benefits); Covell v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 118 So.3d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>); Shannon v. Cheney Bros. Inc., 98 So.3d 1228
holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties holding jcc has subject matter jurisdiction over discovery requests filed by injured worker who is pursuing benefits even before pfb is filed holding that the district court has broad authority to take jurisdiction over a matter even when that matter is not brought by a real party in interest holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court holding that intermediate appellate courts have jurisdiction to address merits of appeal when amended notice of appeal is filed before briefs are filed