With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Court further notes that MetLife’s selective, and unexplained, failure to consider two important pieces of medical evidence in rendering its final decision is a substantial factor leading this Court to conclude its decision was unreasonable. See Govindarajan, 932 F.2d at 637. E. Relief It is proper for the Court to “retroactively grant disability benefits without remanding the case where there are no factual determinations to be made.” Williams v. International Paper Co., 227 F.3d 706, 715 (6th Cir.2000). In Williams, the Sixth Circuit retroactively granted disability benefits, rather than remanding the case, where it concluded that the district court erred in finding the claimant was not disabled. See id.; Godfrey v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 89 F.3d 755, 760-61 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Canseco v. Construction Laborers

A: holding that the alj erred in determining that the claimant was disabled when a retrospective diagnosis along with all other medical evidence supported a finding of disability
B: holding that retroactive award of benefits proper remedy where district court made finding that claimant was disabled
C: holding that no ada violation was shown because the disabled were not denied benefits that were otherwise available
D: holding that the consideration of the fact that claimant collected unemployment benefits while he was allegedly disabled was not a ground for reversal where there was other medical and vocational evidence supporting denial of benefits and claimants receipt of unemployment benefits was not decisive factor in denial of benefits
B.