With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “had a complete resolution of any weakness she had during the last examination.” A.R. at 151. The defendants’ initial denial letter referenced the absence of objective evidence supporting the plaintiffs physical disability claim. If that were the only reason for the denial, the Court would have little trouble reversing because the plan itself does not require “objective” proof of disability. However, it is not unreasonable for a plan administrator to seek a medical or psychiatric explanation tying the conclusion that the claimant is disabled to some medical finding that supports it, particularly when there are statements in the record that are suggestive of an improvement or resolution of conditions. See Yeager v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 88 F.3d 376, 382 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Donato v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

A: holding that in the absence of any definite anatomic explanations of plaintiffs symptoms we cannot find that the administrators decision to deny benefits was not arbitrary and capricious
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 heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan
D: holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision
A.