With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [Koller’s] expert to testify without the requisite level of professional certainty.” Tube City’s Brief at 36. Tube City does not present any argument relating to whether Koller’s expert, Dr. Ozol, testified with the requisite level of professional certainty. Rather, Tube City argues that (1) the trial court failed to determine whether Dr. Ozol was qualified to testify and an expert; (2) there was an inadequate factual basis for Dr. Ozol’s opinion; and (3) Dr. Ozol did not testify as to causation; i.e., that Tube City’s product caused Koller’s problems. Id. at 36, 39. Tube City did not include these issues in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal, and so they have been waived. Lazarski v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 926 A.2d 459, 463 (Pa.Super.2007), (<HOLDING>); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Accordingly we

A: holding that issue not raised in a statement filed pursuant to parap 1925b is waived for purposes of appeal
B: holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived
C: holding that in order to preserve their claims for appellate review appellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to pa rap 1925b any issues not raised in a parap 1925b statement will be deemed waived
D: holding under parap 302a issue not raised until after summary judgment was granted and then only in a statement of matters complained of on appeal was waived for purposes of appeal
A.