With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the process afforded the parties, the extent to which the decisionmakers utilized the assistance of experts where necessary, and finally the soundness of the fiduciary’s ratiocination.” Chalmers, 61 F.3d at 1344; Exbom v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and We 7th Cir.1998) (opining that if a doctor gives his reasons for disagreeing with the opinions of other medical providers, the court must affirm the plan administrator’s decision under the deferential standard). Drs. Kurkjian and Laping provided reasoned medical expert opinion regarding Reagan’s medical condition, and UNUM’s plan administrator did not err in relying upon the one while excluding the other. See Trombetta v. Cragin Fed. Bank for Sav. Employee Stock Ownership, 102 F.3d 1435, 1438 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Reagan’s assertion that because

A: holding that a reversal of the plan administrators decision is in order under the most deferential arbitrary and capricious standard when no reasonable grounds exist to support the decision
B: holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious
C: holding that when applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review the courts role is to determine whether the plan administrators decision was completely unreasonable
D: holding that a plan administrators decision may not be deemed arbitrary and capricious so long as it is possible to offer a reasoned explanation based on the evidence for that decision
D.