With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ms. Jernigan’s claim, and she has offered no explanation on appeal for the 6-year delay in returning Form 21-526 to VA. At oral argument, counsel for Ms. Jernigan asserted that, although he did not know whether Ms. Jernigan relied on the allegedly misleading notice, one could presume that she had from the notice itself and the subsequent delay in submitting the formal application form, but he offered no authority for such a presumption, and our caselaw does not allow it. “The record simply does not support any assertion that the notice lulled the appellant into failing to act, and [her] arguments must be rejected because they are not supported by any demonstrable prejudice.” Edwards, 22 Vet.App. at 35; see Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 173 L.Ed.2d 532 (2009) (<HOLDING>). C. Due Process In her briefs, Ms. Jernigan

A: holding that the party asserting work product protection has the burden of establishing that the doctrine applies
B: holding the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating error in the family courts findings of fact
C: holding that the party asserting notice error has the burden of demonstrating prejudice
D: holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal
C.