With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". novo. Pagan v. NYNEX Pension Plan, 52 F.3d 438, 441 (2d Cir.1995); cf. Celardo v. GNY Auto. Dealers Health & Welfare Trust, 318 F.3d 142, 145 (2d Cir.2003) (“[Djetermination that the Trustees’ decision was arbitrary and capricious is a legal conclusion, ... reviewed] ... de novo.”). Upon review of the record, we conclude that Liberty’s denial of LTD benefits was indeed arbitrary and capricious, substantially for the reasons stated in the R & R and in the District Court’s opinion— namely, that Liberty ignored substantial evidence from Donachie’s treating physicians that he was incapable of performing his current occupation, while failing to offer any reliable evidence to the contrary. See Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s

A: holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions
B: holding that an alj may discount a treating physicians opinion where the physician has offered inconsistent opinions
C: holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician
D: holding that plan administrators may credit reliable evidence that conflicts with a treating physicians evaluation but may not arbitrarily refuse to credit a claimants reliable evidence including the opinions of a treating physician
D.