With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 116 F.Supp.2d 937, 950-51 (M.D.Tenn.2000). As other circuits have recognized, the treating physician rule is a standard that was developed in the Social Security context requiring the administrative law judge to give deference to the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician when determining the claimant’s eligibility for benefits. See, e.g., Regula, 266 F.3d at 1139; see also Peabody Coal Co. v. Groves, 277 F.3d 829, 833-35 (6th Cir.2002) (applying the “treating physician presumption” in a Black Lungs Benefit case holding that an AL J may place greater weight on the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician than those of non-treating physicians). Several circuits have adopted the treating physician rule in an ERISA context. Regula, 266 F.3d at 1139 (<HOLDING>); Donaho v. FMC Corp., 74 F.3d 894, 901 (8th

A: holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate
B: holding that an erisa plan administrator is not bound by an ssa disability determination when reviewing a claim for benefits
C: holding as a matter of first impression that the treating physician rule is applicable in the context of a disability benefits determination under erisa
D: holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa
C.