With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". VA’s own words, i.e., the language of the “NO” box on the Form 9, that may have led the appellant not to present those arguments at an earlier time. Cf. Irwin v. D'ep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) (stating, as to statutory filing deadlines, that tolling of such deadlines may be available “where the claimant has been induced or tricked by his adversary’s misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass”); Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360, 1361, 1365 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc) (applying tolling in veterans benefits context where RO employee accepted appellant’s signed form to appeal Board decision and apparently told him that, inter alia, “she would take care of [his appeal]”). But cf. Cummings v. West, 136 F.3d 1468, 1472-74 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Such language is particularly significant

A: holding that mailing a copy of a notice of appeal that was filed in the trial court to the city law director does not constitute filing the notice of appeal with the city board of zoning appeals
B: holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city
C: holding that presumption of regulari ty was rebutted where secretary could not show that va had mailed notice of bva decision and appellants letters appeared to reflect that he was seeking information regarding status of bva review thus indicating that he had not received that notice
D: holding that language utilized in appeals notice accompanying board decision satisfactorily explained how and when to pursue bva reconsideration and to appeal to this court also recognizing that portion of such notice might be confusing
D.