With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or work potential, or possible salaries in the relevant market. See Caldwell, 287 F.3d at 1289. LINA could only avoid having to engage a vocational expert if it “could garner substantial evidence to demonstrate that [Ms. Null] is, in fact, able to perform other occupations ... in the open labor market.” See id. LINA has not garnered any information supporting such a conclusion; in fact, the weight of the evidence is to the contrary. Ignoring evidence relevant to a decision or failing to consider all the evidence in the record can lead to a conclusion that a benefits determination is arbitrary and capricious, see id. at 1284-86— that is, even more than just incorrect, which is the standard for de novo review. See Gaither v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 388 F.3d 759, 773 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Given that the Plan’s operational definition

A: holding that fiduciaries cannot shut their eyes to readily available information when the evidence in the record suggests that the information might confirm the beneficiarys theory of entitlement and when they have little or no evidence in the record to refute that theory
B: holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal
C: recognizing that when a beneficiary requests information from an erisa fiduciary who is aware of the beneficiarys status and situation the fiduciary has an obligation to convey complete and accurate information material to the beneficiarys circumstance even if that requires conveying information about which the beneficiary did not specifically inquire
D: holding that with regards to jail credit claims at a minimum the motion will have to allege where in the record the information can be located and explain how the record demonstrates entitlement to the relief requested
A.