relating to a plan physical makes the doctor a plan fiduciary. The exercise of medical discretion as to whether or not to permit an IME to be tape recorded is not subject to ERISA Plaintiffs claim is clearly beyond the purpose and intent of ERISA. Lake-Cook did not make the decision to not schedule an IME with another provider. Lake-Cook did not make the decision to insist on using a tape recorder; Plaintiff did. Lake-Cook did not make the decision to terminate Plaintiff. Lake-Cook had no discretion in the administration of the Abbott plan and is not a fiduciary under ERISA. See Harris Trust & Sav. Bank, 57 F.3d at 612 (not a fiduciary of plan regulated by administrative services agreement); Associates in Adolescent Psychiatry v. Home Life Ins. Co., 941 F.2d 561, 570 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). ERISA cannot be read so expansively to
holding that because no plan document granted discretion to the plan administrator and because the fiduciaries had not expressly delegated their discretionary authority to the plan administrator the district court properly employed the de novo standard of review holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary holding that where plaintiffs alleged that the plan suffered significant losses and requested that fiduciaries make good to the plan the losses to the plan they need not seek to recover for all plan participants allegedly injured by the fiduciary breach 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