With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". arises that her injury "arose out of" employment. Because The Oaks presented no evidence that the injury was the result of idiopathic causes, it has not rebutted this presumption. On this iss 2001) (expressly adopting the positional-risk doctrine); Johnson v. Publix Supermarkets, 256 Ga.App. 540, 568 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2002) (same), cert. denied; Mayo v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 93 Idaho 161, 457 P.2d 400, 402 (1969) (same); Hayes v. Gibson Hart Co., 789 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Ky.1990) (documenting "a long line of Kentucky cases" recognizing the positional risk doctrine); Mulready v. Univ. Research Corp., 360 Md. 51, 756 A.2d 575, 583 (2000) (observing that the rule adopted by the Court is "substantially" the positional risk test); Stanley Baran's Case, 336 Mass. 342, 145 N.E.2d 726, 727 (1957) (<HOLDING>); Whetro v. Awkerman, 383 Mich. 235, 174 N.W.2d

A: holding that additional consideration is a factor in determining whether there is an implied contract of employment
B: holding that it is the claimants burden to show that the injury was the result of an accident that not only arose in the course of the employment but that it also grew out of or resulted from the employment
C: holding that where an employee is fatally injured in an unexplained assault there is a rebuttable presumption that the employees death arose out of the employment
D: holding that in determining whether an accident arose out of employment the issue is whether the employees employment brought him in contact with the risk that in fact caused his injuries
D.