With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of service connection is issued. Eligibility for direct payment of attorneys fees would depend on whether the claim underlying the appeal to this Court included the TDIU issue. If eligibility for a TDIU rating was reasonably raised by the evidence of record as part of the underlying claim for disability compensation before VA, then the TDIU rating is part of the “initial rating” and, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.609(h)(3)(i), the appellant would be entitled to payment by the Secretary of 20% of such award. See Norris, supra. However, whether such issue was reasonably raised is not clear from the record. The effective date for the TDIU award is May 1992, which implies that the claim for TDIU was reasonably raised at that time. See In re Fee Agreement of Cox, 11 Vet.App. 158, 163 (1998) (<HOLDING>). There is evidence of record that the

A: holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective
B: holding that the effective date of an award of secondary service connection was evidence that the secretary considered the claim before the varo at that time
C: holding that the commission on remand can set the effective date of a rate to be the effective date of the original commission activity
D: holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal
B.