With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Bain’s brief, at 29. To the extent that Bain argues that. HKH held out to the public that the emergency-room physicians working in the hospital were HKH employees because it operated a full-service hospital with an emergency room that was “open for business,” we must conclude that this evidence is not sufficient, in itself, to meet the requirement that HKH held out its emergency-room physicians as its employees. .Cer tainly, the mere existence of an emergency department in a hospital cannot be evidence of an affirmative act by HKH from which we could conclude that HKH . held itself out as employing the physicians who worked in the emergency department. See Brown, 899 So.2d at 237 (quoting Birmingham News Co. v. Birmingham Printing Co., 209 Ala. 403, 405, 96 So. 336, 339 (1923) (<HOLDING>)). -Further, to the-extent that Bain'contends

A: holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief
B: holding that there can be no common liability upon which to base a contribution claim between a third party and an injured partys employer because the exclusive remedy provision means that the employers liability is not based on negligence so that application of the common liability rule deprives a third party of the opportunity to secure contribution from the injured partys employer
C: holding that the injured partys mere belief at the authority existed without cause is notenough
D: holding that standing existed
C.