149, 152 (4th Cir.1996) (citing Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989)). III. A. Requesting Dr. Schuster to Reconsider His Opinion Upon remand, Guardian asked Dr. Schuster to ignore Mrs. Hung’s evidence regarding headache. The district court characterized this instruction as a credibility determination within the plan administrator’s discretionary powers. We disagree. While a plan administrator may resolve conflicts between medical reports, she may not withhold or edit inconsistencies within a patient’s medical history to obtain a definitive medical report. Courts have repeatedly held that a claim administrator’s resolution between competing medical opinions is not an abuse of discretion so long as the decision is reasonable. See, e.g., Booth, 201 F.3d at 345-46 (<HOLDING>); Elliott, 190 F.3d at 606 (same); Sheppard &
holding that erisa permits suits to recover benefits only against the plan as an entity and thus the beneficiary had erred by suing her exhusbands employer and plan administrator when proper party would have been the benefits plan itself holding that similar language conferred discretion on the plan administrator holding that the plan administrator did not abuse her discretion by denying benefits when faced with conflicting medical reports holding that an employees claim against plan administrator for denied benefits is preempted holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator