With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". from Congress to do so, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s suggestion in Russell that no such right exists. Plaintiffs extracontractual claim also fails on the merits. Plaintiffs claim for additional interest necessarily challenges the Board of Trustees’ interpretation and administration of the terms of the Plan. Under the Plan, the Board of Trustees has discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits. Thus, even if ERISA affords relief for independent claims of interest on paid benefits, the Court must still scrutinize the Board of Trustees’ decision to award five percent interest under the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard as set forth in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 956-57, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989) (<HOLDING>). See also Jordan, 875 F.Supp. at 128

A: holding that plan language granting the plan administrator the sole discretion to construe the terms of a long term disability policy and to determine eligibility under the policy triggered arbitrary and capricious review
B: holding that a denial of benefits will not be reviewed de novo where the language of an erisa plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan
C: holding that plan fiduciary is entitled to deferential review if empowered by the plan to construe its terms in order to determine benefit eligibility
D: holding that arbitrary and capricious standard applies to section 1132a1b denial ofbenefits claims if the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan
D.