With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court of Appeals that “[t]he parties’ subjective belief as to whether an employment relationship exists is not dispositive of the legal question of whether one is the employer of another, except as such belief indicates an assumption of control by the one and submission by the other.” Here, to paraphrase Whitehead, “the inescapable conclusion is that [Love] voluntarily submitted to [USA Waste’s] control.” We therefore hold that under the workers’ compensation laws of both Maryland and the District of Columbia, USA Waste was Love’s employer and hence was immune from liability to him in tort for his work-related injury. The judgment on appeal must be reversed. So Ordered. 1 . See Union Light & Power Co. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 796 A.2d 665, 669 (D.C.2002) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp.,

A: recognizing the issue may be decided as a question of law if the facts are undisputed and support only one inference
B: holding that temporary employee status for workers compensation purposes is determinable as a matter of law where the particular undisputed critical facts compel that conclusion and present no triable issue of fact
C: holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation
D: holding that workers compensation is the exclusive remedy as a matter of substantive law and hence whenever it appears from the plaintiffs pleadings bill of particulars or the facts that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant the obligation of alleging and proving noncoverage or applicability of workers compensation benefits falls on the plaintiff the court continued stating that waiver may be accomplished by ignoring the issue to the point of final disposition
B.