claimants at least 180 days following receipt of a notification of an adverse benefit determination within which to appeal the determination.” 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503 — l(h)(3)(i). 4 . As to whether either Edwards’s October 2007 letter or her counsel’s February 2008 letter put the Plan under a duty to inquire whether Edwards wished for one or both of the letters to be construed as an appeal, we find that they did not. It is the case, as Edwards points out, "that fiduciaries cannot shut their eyes to readily available information when the evidence in the record suggests that the information might confirm the beneficiary’s theoiy of entitlement and when they have little or no evidence in the record to refute that theory.” Gaither v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 394 F.3d 792, 807 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). However, neither of the letters at issue put
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 a plan administrator was arbitrary and capricious in denying a plan participants claim that use of prescription narcotics rendered the participant disabled from the performance of his occupation and thus eligible for benefits under the plan without investigating the claim 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 plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant