With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". EmCare, which resulted in Scott’s firing. Also similar to Scott, the plaintiff in Butler used the same equipment as the manufacturer’s employees and produced the goods that were the manufacturer’s core business. See id. But there are important differences between the two cases. For example, the manufacturer’s employees supervised the Butler plaintiff on the factory floor. See id. Here, Scott was supervised by an EmCare employee. Further, the Butler plaintiff performed the same tasks as the manufacturer’s employees, whereas all hospitalists like Scott were EmCare employees. Given these differences, Butler does not convince us that the jury here rendered a verdict against the great weight of the evidence. Cf. Ling Nan Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co. Inc., 617 F.3d 182, 185-86 (2d Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). The relationship between Scott and the

A: holding that joint employment determination was a complex mixed question of law and fact properly determined by jury
B: holding that an error pertaining to a mixed question of law and fact under state law is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding
C: holding the question of necessity is one of mixed law and fact and accordingly one for the fact finder in the ordinary case
D: holding that probable cause determination presents a mixed question of law and fact
A.