the arbitrary and capricious standard, the re-; viewing court may consider only the evidence that the administrators themselves considered. See Miller v. United Welfare Fund, 72 F.3d 1066, 1071 (2d Cir.1995) (“[A] district court’s review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is limited to the administrative record.”); Lee v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 10 F.3d 1547, 1550 (11th Cir.1994) (requiring courts “to look only to the facts known to the administrator”); Taft v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 9 F.3d 1469, 1471-72 (9th Cir.1993) (fearing that examination beyond the administrative record would too easily lead to findings of abuse of discretion, defeating the goal of ERISA to resolve disputes expeditiously); Abnathya v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 2 F.3d 40, 48 n. 8 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Oldenburger v. Central States Southeast &
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 that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable holding that evaluations submitted after the committees final decision cannot be considered in determining whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious holding that under the arbitrary and capricious standard this court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment