those terms conflicted with the terms in governing plan documents. Amara, 131 S.Ct. at 1876-78. In that context, the Court rejected the notion that terms in an SPD “necessarily may be enforced ... as the terms of the plan itself.” Id. at 1877. The Tenth Circuit has interpreted the Amara decision to present two “fairly simple propositions ... (1) the terms of the SPD are not enforceable when they conflict with governing plan documents, or (2) the SPD cannot create terms that are not also authorized by, or reflected in, governing plan documents.” Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J., 663 F.3d 1124, 1131 (10th Cir.2011). The Eugene S. court further concluded that language in the SPD may demonstrate discretionary authority where “the SPD is part of the Plan.” Id. at 1131 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the SPD provides: “The Company
holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator 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 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 holding that similar language conferred discretion on the plan administrator holding that because the spd at issue stated that it is made part of the group policy its terms were sufficient to find that the plan conferred discretion on the plan administrator