With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it was unreasonable for plan to refuse to consider the effect of plaintiffs “stress,” when the plan did not say that self-reported or subjective factors should be accorded less significance than other indicators); see also Green v. Prudential Ins. Co., 383 F.Supp.2d 980, 997-98 (M.D.Tenn.2005)(Nixon, J.)(where treating physicians and specialists have diagnosed fibromyalgia, and there not objective tests available to prove certain symptoms, it is unreasonable to require objective findings); Pollini v. Raytheon Dis. Employee Trust, 54 F.Supp.2d 54, 59 (D.Mass. 1999)(“the claim administrator’s rejection of a claim solely on the basis of a purported lack of objective evidence is troubling and questionable.”); May v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 2011460, *7 (N.D.Cal. Sept.9, 2004)(<HOLDING>). Moreover, as the Seventh Circuit explained:

A: holding that plan administrator abused its discretion when it interpreted plan as giving it the right to subrogation with respect to all claims and not just those claims for medical expenses
B: holding that it was wrong for an administrator to require a claimant suffering from fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome to submit objective medical evidence in support of her claim for benefits when the plan did not require such evidence
C: holding that plan administrator could appropriately require objective medical evidence supporting disability claim where such a requirement is not contradicted by any provision of the administrators own policy
D: holding that metlife abused its discretion by requiring the plaintiff meet an additional requirement for eligibility beyond those imposed by the plan the administrator cannot exclude a claim for lack of objective medical evidence unless the objective medical evidence standard was made clear plain and conspicuous enough in the policy to negate plaintiffs objectively reasonable expectations of coverage
D.