relied on by Defendant. Moreover, none of these opinions appear to contradict the statements of Dr. Brooks and Dr. Dugger that Plaintiff had ceased receiving regular treatment for the physical conditions that he claimed were preventing him from returning to work. As mentioned above, this was an express condition to the continued receipt of disability benefits. Even assuming all of these doctors concluded that Plaintiff was unable to perform “any” occupation, the existence of contradictory medical opinions in the administrative record does not make a plan administrator’s decision “arbitrary and capricious,” absent convincing evidence that the medical opinions supporting the decision were unreliable. See Jett v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, 890 F.2d 1137, 1140 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
holding that a reversal of the plan administrators decision is in order under the most deferential arbitrary and capricious standard when no reasonable grounds exist to support the decision holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious holding that a plan administrators decision may not be deemed arbitrary and capricious so long as it is possible to offer a reasoned explanation based on the evidence for that decision