With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". authority to review his entire case but this court affirmed, holding that the Appeals Council possessed the prerogative to broaden the scope of its review. See also Gronda v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 856 F.2d 36 (6th Cir. 1988) (Appeals Council had authority to review entire case within sixty days of ALJ's decision even though claimant only requested review of narrow aspect of case), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1052, 109 S.Ct. 1312, 103 L.Ed.2d 581 (1989). We doubt whether Hale would possess an actionable claim even if she had not received fair warning of the possible consequences of an appeal. See DeLong, 771 F.2d at 268 (allowing Appeals Council to broaden scope of review without providing clear notice to claimant). But see Kennedy v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Powell v. Heckler, 789 F.2d 176 (3d Cir.1986)

A: recognizing that the scope of issues in interlocutory appeals is limited
B: holding that appeals council cannot expand scope of review and overturn a partially favorable decision absent notice of councils intent to reexamine issues not challenged by claimant
C: holding that additional records submitted to the appeals council are part of the administrative record for judicial review
D: holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant
B.