is defined as "First Health Strategies, Inc., or such other firm, person or corporation appointed by the Trustees to perform the duties required herein to be performed by the Contract Administrator." Id. at ALS52 (Art. I) (emphasis added). 9 . The court overrules plaintiff's objections to defendants' evidence (Bates Stamped ALS197-200, see Kurzon Decl. Ex. G) since it has already reviewed the materials. However, this additional material has no impact on the outcome here. 10 . The court also noted that its construction was consistent with law applicable to Social Security claims. Bruce, 2003 WL 21005313, *6 n. 12 (citing Willis v. Callahan, 979 F.Supp. 1299, 1305 (D.Or.1997)). See Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 833, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Defendants also rely on Smith v. Unum
holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions although administrators may not arbitrarily refuse to credit them holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan holding that unlike the social security disability program erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to the opinions of treating physicians and noting that there are critical differences between the two programs that nothing in erisa requires employers to establish employee benefit plans and that erisa does not mandate what kind of benefits employers must provide if they choose to have such a plan quotations omitted holding that when employers serve as plan administrators they assume the role of fiduciary under erisa holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions