With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". assuming arguendo that the duty to assist does not apply to a waiver request — an issue we need not decide today — it does not follow that there is no duty to sympathetically read Mrs. Edwards’ May 2000 pro se submissions. This is because the Secretary’s duty to sympathetically read submissions is tied to the pro se status of the appellant when filing pleadings before the Secretary in actions related to benefits, and not whether the pleadings specifically seek benefits. Indeed, even a pro se request for revision based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE) must be read sympathetically. See Andrews v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1278, 1283 (Fed.Cir.2005) (stating that the duty to sympathetically read pro se filing applies to CUE motions); Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet.App.

A: holding that the secretary must sympathetically read prior pro se filings in determining if cue exists in an earlier decision
B: holding that courts must construe pro se filings liberally
C: holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond
D: holding petitioners pro se status did not constitute adequate cause for failure to raise claims earlier
A.