Task: Text Completion
Input (English): was not bound by this ruling when he rendered this decision in 1999 because SSR 00-4p was not effective until December 2000. Perhaps as a result, Money mentions SSR 00-4p on appeal but concedes that we do not need to apply it here. She argues persuasively that this court has endorsed reconciling conflicts between VEs’ testimony and the DOT definitions even in claims not governed by SSR 00-4p. See Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 126-27 (3d Cir.2002). We do not need to decide this question, though, because the district court’s decision to affirm stands even if such reconciliation was needed. Money apparently did not raise the first issue regarding the error in step four to the district court, and it is therefore waived. See Gass v. V.I. Telephone Corp., 311 F.3d 237, 246 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Looking at this issue on the merits, this 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court (B) holding issues not raised before local agency are waived (C) holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal (D) holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal (E) holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal
Output (English): (D)