In Whitehurst the Fifth Circuit applied a de novo standard of review because the parties agreed that the administrator had not been vested with discretionary authority to interpret the Plan. Id. In this case, however, there is no dispute that the Plan Administrator was vested with discretionary authority to interpret the Plan. When a plan administrator has been vested with discretionary authority to interpret a plan, courts review the administrator’s decisions only for abuse of discretion. See Koehler v. Aetna Health, Inc., 683 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir.2012). Application of the abuse of discretion standard may involve a two-step process. See Wildbur v. ARCO Chemical Co., 974 F.2d 631, 637 (5th Cir.1992). See also Duhon v. Texaco, Inc., 15 F.3d 1302, 1307-08 & n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). First, courts may determine if the plan
holding the lilly analysis is not a sequential twostep process but rather one broad inquiry recognizing that the reviewing court is not rigidly confined to wildburs  twostep analysis in every case holding that sauciers twostep sequence is not mandatory holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress