With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". what plaintiff needed to do to maintain her LTD benefits; if the Social Security and Workers Compensation records supported plaintiffs claim, she was on notice that she needed to provide them. Moreover, even if defendant had received the relevant documents directly from the above-referenced agencies, plaintiff has not shown how these documents would have changed the outcome. Plaintiffs only proffer with respect to the SSA records is her own assertion, without evi-dentiary support, that the SSA found her to be permanently, totally disabled. (See Plf.’s Reply at 2.) Further, even assuming the SSA’s records were consistent with plaintiffs description, defendant would not be bound by any such determination. See Madden v. ITT Long Term Disability Plan, 914 F.2d 1279, 1283-86 (9th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Wallace v. Intel Corp., 2005 WL

A: holding plan fiduciary did not abuse discretion in crediting medical evidence in record showing lack of disability notwithstanding social security award in favor of claimant
B: holding a social security number is not private
C: holding parent entitled to credit for any social security disability benefits paid to child as a result of parents disability
D: holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of social security disability benefits
A.