With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The estate of David L. Welsh (“Welsh”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. (“MetLife”), which administers an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA. We review for abuse of discretion MetLife’s denial of Welsh’s claim for long term disability benefits, see Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 967-69 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), and the district court’s denial of a portion

A: holding that because no plan document granted discretion to the plan administrator and because the fiduciaries had not expressly delegated their discretionary authority to the plan administrator the district court properly employed the de novo standard of review
B: holding that similar language conferred discretion on the plan administrator
C: holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant
D: holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator
D.