Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
version of the peculiar risk doctrine, that is, under either section 413 or section 416. Privette, 5 Cal.4th 689, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721 (1993); see also Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 253, 264 n. 2, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504 (1998); Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy, 25 Cal.4th 1235, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 25 P.3d 1096 (2001) (applying the peculiar risk analysis of Privette to section 410, negligent hiring, and holding hirer not liable for the negligent performance of a hired contractor for injuries to the contractor’s employees). When considering a hirer’s liability under the peculiar risk provisions, the courts consistently distinguished the issue before them from the tort theory set forth in section 414. Toland, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d at 511 n. 2 ; Camargo, 25 Cal.4th at 1245, n. 2, 108
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under the mwa the question of whether an employee was an independent contractor or an employee was a question of statutory interpretation
B. holding that the grant of review did not extend to and therefore we do not decide  whether privette  would preclude an employee of an independent contractor from seeking tort recovery from workplace injuries under the theory of section 414
C. holding that we must decide whether to grant or deny the petition for review based on the boards reasoning rather than our own independent analysis emphasis added
D. holding osha does not preclude an employee from pursuing a tort action for a retaliatory discharge
E. holding that the determination of whether an individual is an independent contractor lies in the common law and not under an express provision of the act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.