With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". answered with “three mistakes.” None of the three mistakes, however, commented on the IME results that Briggs had a sedentary functional capacity. Therefore, Liberty reasonably concluded that Dr. Anchor’s failure to comment suggested that he agreed with the IME’s conclusion that Briggs had a. sedentary capacity. Even considering the facts in the light most favorable to Briggs, this case amounts’to Briggs’s treating physicians and the non-treating physicians having conflicting clinical findings. Although Liberty cannot arbitrarily ignore the opinions of Briggs’s treating physicians, it reasonably may choose to value the opinions of its own medical consultants over his treating physician. Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, an independent medical examiner and an

A: holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions although administrators may not arbitrarily refuse to credit them
B: recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel
C: holding that courts have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a claimants 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
A.