of the plan as a whole.” Id. at 142 n. 9, 105 S.Ct. at 3090 n. 9. Following Russell, the Sixth Circuit has provided that, pursuant to Section 502(a)(2), participants [and beneficiaries] are authorized to sue on behalf of a plan for breach of fiduciary duty and “[p]ermit-ting such suits ... is the mechanism which Congress established to enforce the plan’s right to recover for a breach of fiduciary duty.” Smith v. Provident Bank, 170 F.3d 609, 616 (6th Cir.1999). Thus ERISA grants four categories of plaintiffs the right to sue a fiduciary of an ERISA plan, on behalf of the plan, for injuries incurred by the plan due to a breach of the fiduciary’s ERISA duties, regardless of whether the plaintiff individually suffered any injury as a result of the breach. See Merck-Medco, 433 F.3d at 199 (<HOLDING>); Horvath v. Keystone Health Plan East, Inc.,
holding that a plan participant may have article iii standing to obtain injunctive relief related to erisas disclosure and fiduciary duty requirements without a showing of individual harm to the participant holding that plaintiff is a plan participant and he is seeking to recover for the plan as a whole these are the only requirements on the face of the statute itself holding that a plan participant or beneficiary may not recover extracontractual damages in an erisa suit for breach of fiduciary duty under  502a2 and 409a only the plan may recover damages in such cases holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding noneconomic harm satisfies article iii standing requirements