With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ERISA law to trust law and adapting the standards of review from trust law to fit ERISA cases). These three standards are the de novo standard, arbitrary and capricious standard, and heightened arbitrary and capricious standard. Williams v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 373 F.3d 1132, 1137-1138 (11th Cir.2004). The amount of deference granted to a plan administrator’s decision varies considerably among these standards, and the standard of review employed by a court can often be outcome determinative. In this case, however, the appropriate standard of review of Defendant’s decision is irrelevant because its decision should be reversed, even under the most deferential standard, for there were no “reasonable” grounds to support its denial of Plaintiffs disability claim. See id. (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s stated reason in its January 8,

A: holding that a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan
B: holding that when applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review the courts role is to determine whether the plan administrators decision was completely unreasonable
C: holding that a reversal of the plan administrators decision is in order under the most deferential arbitrary and capricious standard when no reasonable grounds exist to support the decision
D: holding that a plan administrators decision may not be deemed arbitrary and capricious so long as it is possible to offer a reasoned explanation based on the evidence for that decision
C.