Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and second disability hearings in this case effectively establish the transferability of Lamorey’s receptionist skills to an alternative position, such as information clerk, that would not require frequent and repetitious use of her hands and fingers, which was the crucial physical limitation precluding Lamorey from returning to her past work. See generally Draegert v. Barnhart, 311 F.3d 468, 474 (2d Cir.2002). This testimony was essentially unchallenged at the hearings, and Lamorey fails to show that anything further would be gained by a remand. Cf. Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d at 386-87 (concluding that remand for step five determination was appropriate where the record was incomplete because the ALJ failed to call a vocational expert); Williams v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 48, 50 (2d Cir.1999) ; of also Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d at 135
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that remand is the appropriate remedy where inter alia the board has incorrectly applied the law
B. holding that a sentence four remand under 42 usc  405g is a final appealable decision and that a party who wins a remand under sentence four is a prevailing party for purposes of the eaja
C. holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation
D. holding that remand was the appropriate remedy when an erroneous step four determination has precluded any analysis under step five
E. holding that dismissal is not appropriate when that step could jeopardize the timeliness of a collateral attack
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.