that Corbet Craddock owned the parcel in 1980, the Keeper’s argument would still miss the mark. After all, Bailey’s research suggests that Corbet Craddock died in 1983. Moreover, the Keeper’s argument ignores the plaintiffs’ contention that Nellie Craddock lacked authorization to object for Corbet Craddock. Thus, from the same discrete source, the Keeper cites (allegedly) favorable evidence and disregards unfavorable evidence. Such cherry-picking embodies arbitrary and capricious conduct. See Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 237 (D.C.Cir.2008) (citations omitted) (indicating that “there is no APA precedent allowing an agency to cherry-pick a study on which it has chosen to rely”); cf. Shaw v. AT&T Umbrella Ben. Plan No. 1, 795 F.3d 538, 541, 546-47 (6th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, this argument fails. The Keeper
holding that a failure of an erisa plan administrator to address the social security administrations determination that claimant is totally disabled is yet another factor that can render the denial of further longterm disability benefits arbitrary and capricious holding that under erisa a plan administrators decision to deny an employee longterm disability benefits is arbitrary and capricious if the administrator ignores favorable evidence  and selectively reviews the evidence it does consider holding that a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding it is not arbitrary and capricious to request additional evidence of continuing disability