With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". revocation. AT & T can hardly be expected to intuitively know when a participant is confused over certain aspects of the Plan, and the Court cannot fault Defendants for treating the revocation issue generally rather than addressing in the plan documents every possible contingency that could result in a change in payment election by a participant. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has held that absent a specific participant-initiated inquiry, a plan administrator does not have any fiduciary duty to determine whether confusion about a plan term or condition exists. It is only after the plan administrator does receive an inquiry that it has a fiduciary obligation to respond promptly and adequately in a way that is not misleading. Switzer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 52 F.3d 1294, 1299 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The Switzer court’s holding is equally

A: holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage
B: holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions
C: holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator
D: holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant
D.