Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
employer defaulted in that obligation. Cf. Bilotta v. Labor Pool of St. Paul, Inc., 321 N.W.2d 888 (Minn.1982). Having set forth the test for determining whether a special employer relationship exists, we must now analyze these factors as they apply to the facts of the instant ease to determine if Allied is Bowens’s special employer. Whether an individual is a special employee for workers’ compensation purposes is generally a question of fact. However, a court may find special employment status as a matter of law where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, together with affidavits establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact to the contrary. See Union Light & Power Co. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 796 A.2d 665, 669 (D.C.2002)  (quoting Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation
B. holding that the right to recover a particular measure of damages in a workers compensation case is fixed as of the date of injury
C. recognizing the issue may be decided as a question of law if the facts are undisputed and support only one inference
D. 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
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.