Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on the basis of loss of range of motion, these determinations should, if feasible, be “portray[ed]” (§ 4.40) in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss due to pain on use or during flare-ups. Cf. Lathan v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 359, 367 (1995) (in ordering medical opinion on remand in dependency and indemnity compensation case, VA should “consider the feasibility of requesting that the physician express in percentage terms the probability that the veteran’s service-connected disability caused or contributed to death”). The Court holds that DC 5201 does not subsume 38 C.F.R. § 4.40, and that 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 does not forbid consideration of a higher rating based on a greater limitation of motion due to pain on use including during flare-ups. See Schafmth, 1 VetApp. at 592-93 ; see also Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that we generally may not consider issues not raised before the bia
B. holding that where it was clear that the court of appeals had limited the issues on resentencing to the one issue raised in the defendants first appeal the district court did not err in declining to consider other issues raised by the defendant on remand
C. holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal
D. holding that we consider issues not raised at administrative level waived
E. holding that bvas failure to consider  440 was improper when that regulation had been made potentially applicable through assertions and issues raised in record
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.