With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 569, 580 (C.D.Cal.1998) (accepting opinion of independent medical reviewers rather than opinion of treating doctor is not proof of arbitrary or capricious conduct). Sedgwick properly treated the more recent documentation from her healthcare providers differently in the denial of her request for a continuation of short-term disability benefits than it treated similar documentation in its prior approvals of benefits. The prior approvals occurred immediately after her hospitalizations. We agree with the district court that it was not unreasonable for Sedgwick to require more specific information regarding Ms. Atkins’ ability to work when considering a continuance of benefits claim, since her most recent hospitalization had occurred forty days earlier. See Kimber, 196 F.3d at 1099 (<HOLDING>). Nothing beyond Ms. Atkins’ assertion suggests

A: holding that a moiety award will be upheld unless it is arbitrary or capricious
B: recognizing a nonstatutory basis for setting aside an arbitration award if it is arbitrary and capricious
C: holding it is not arbitrary and capricious to request additional evidence of continuing disability
D: holding that defendants denial of employees claim for failure to provide objective evidence was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on a mischaracterization of the evidence employee submitted
C.