With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". employer does not alter the analysis because both general and special employers are entitled to tort immunity once workers' compensation has been paid. See Antheunisse, 551 A.2d at 1007. Nor do I find Taylor distinguishable because there was no change in corporate form in that case. Taylor addresses the precise issue before me: whether an employment relationship with an unincorporated entity within a corporation gives rise to an employment relationship with the corporation for the purposes of workers’ compensation tort immunity despite the employee’s belief that the unincorporated entity is the employer and unawareness of any relationship with the corporation. I find no support for plaintiff's argument in Santos v. Standard Havens, Inc., 225 N.J.Super. 16, 541 A.2d 708 (App.Div.1988) (<HOLDING>). 8 . This New Jersey precedent emphasizing

A: recognizing that a foreign company as a special employer under the lent employee doctrine was subject to arizonas workers compensation statutes for injuries sustained by an employee
B: holding that a lent employees acceptance of his special employment status could be implied from his acquiescence to the control and direction of the special employer
C: recognizing special circumstances exception
D: holding that plaintiffs decedent became special employee of separately incorporated subsidiary after general employer parent corporation lent his services to subsidiary under circumstances that satisfied special employment factors
D.