McArthur’s claimant statement includes a reference to “Policy Number 36133-021,” which is the SPD. This claimant statement is filled in by hand and signed by McArthur on February 4, 2009. (See Doc. 13-2 at 7). Thus, this Court is not convinced that the alleged ambiguities in the Plan documents—specifically the ambiguity concerning the dura tion of the elimination period—caused Mc-Arthur any delay. In addition, both the SPD and the Policy contain a provision stating that “[t]he summary plan description and the policy constitute the Plan.” Other courts have decided that such provisions incorporate into the Plan those terms found only in summary plan description. See Young v. United Parcel Servs., Inc. Employees’ Short Term Disability Plan, 416 Fed.Appx. 734, 737-39 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the SPD provision at issue in
holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled holding that a summary plan description must not mislead misinform or fail to inform participants and beneficiaries of the plan holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications  are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description