With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". under a de novo standard “unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989); see also Ingram v. Martin Marietta Long Term Disability Income Plan, 244 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir.2001). It is undisputed that the plan at issue in this case does not give the administrator such discretion. Thus, we review the administrator’s determination de novo. When faced with questions of insurance policy interpretation under ERISA, federal courts apply federal common law. Firestone, 489 U.S. at 110, 109 S.Ct. 948; Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 98, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Under the federal common law of ERISA, we

A: holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans
B: holding a state workers compensation regime preempted by erisa to the extent state law applied to pension plans governed by federal law
C: holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans
D: recognizing fraud in the inducement as defense under federal common law interpreting erisa
C.