With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Log acknowledges the existence of comordid diagnoses. (AR 147, 217.) However, without any explanation, MetLife subsequently took the position that no comordi 3 (6th Cir.2006) (under arbitrary-or-capricious standard, where credibility determination was key component of assessing disability, reliance solely on file review, without an independent examination, was inadequate); Kinser, 488 F.Supp.2d 1369, 1382; Sheehan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 368 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (noting that a psychiatrist evaluating a patient’s mental health relies heavily on their ability to observe the patient’s mannerisms, demean- or, and expressions and therefore inherently involves credibility determinations); Smith v. Bayer Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 275 Fed.Appx. 495, 508 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Having concluded that MetLife’s decision to

A: holding that plan language granting the plan administrator the sole discretion to construe the terms of a long term disability policy and to determine eligibility under the policy triggered arbitrary and capricious review
B: holding under arbitrary and capricious standard that sheehan highlights the inadequacy of record review when determining benefits for someone claiming a mental disability as an examination could have helped the plan administrator to better evaluate the severity of plaintiffs symptoms
C: 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
D: holding court must review de novo companys denial of benefits unless benefit plan gives administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to construe terms of plan in which case courts review a benefits denial under an arbitrary and capricious standard
B.