With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". repeatedly retained by benefits plans may have an incentive to make a finding of "not disabled" in order to save their employers money and to preserve their own consulting arrangements. But the assumption that the opinions of a treating physician warrant greater credit than the opinions of plan consultants may make scant sense when, for example, the relationship between the claimant and the treating physician has been of short duration, or when a specialist engaged by the plan has expertise the treating physician lacks. And if a consultant engaged by a plan may have an incentive to make a finding of "not disabled," so a treating physician, in a close case, may favor a finding of "disabled.” Nord, 538 U.S. at 832, o., No. 02-10067-CIV, 2004 WL 2674352, at *4 (S.D.Fla. August 31, 2004) (<HOLDING>). However, plaintiff has cited no authority,

A: holding that plan 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 layman sic plaintiffs objectively reasonable expectations of coverage 
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 it was error for a plan administrator to require the claimant to submit clinical findings to support his diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome when the plan did not require such evidence
B.