With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it must be satisfactory to us” bestowed upon the plan’s administrator discretion regarding the payments of benefits, and therefore, an arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied. Id. at 379. Here, the plan stated that “when proof is received by [Defendant] that an insured employee is totally disabled ..., [Defendant] will pay a monthly benefit to the insured employee after the completion of the elimination period. This monthly benefit will be paid as long as total disability continues provided that proof of contingent total disability is submitted ... to [Defendant] upon request.” The Court finds that this language is sufficiently similar to that found in Patterson and Donato by which we are bound. See Bali v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n, 873 F.2d 1043, 1047 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, an arbitrary and capricious

A: holding plan language requiring satisfactory written proof that you have become disabled did not unambiguously confer discretion in the plan administrator
B: holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator
C: holding that because no plan document granted discretion to the plan administrator and because the fiduciaries had not expressly delegated their discretionary authority to the plan administrator the district court properly employed the de novo standard of review
D: holding that language determined on the basis of medical evidence satisfactory to the committee sufficiently granted plan administrator discretion
D.