partially on the grids. The Commissioner’s waiver argument is baseless. Lawrence may not have said anything about the use of the grids when he appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals Council, but neither was he required to say anything at that point. See Johnson v. Apfel, 189 F.3d 561, 563 (7th Cir.1999). Without doubt, however, he raised the subject to the satisfaction of the district judge, who addressed his argument at length. The pui-pose of the waiver rule— to allow the district court an opportunity to rule on claimant’s arguments before they reach this court — has been satisfied in this case and therefore Lawrence’s challenge to the ALJ’s application of the grids is properly before this court. See Cromeens, Holloman, Sibert, Inc v. AB Volvo, 349 F.3d 376, 389 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). And Lawrence’s argument that the ALJ
holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived