and ERISA plan were clearly set forth and only allegedly modified by oral promises. Therefore, plaintiff cannot base her estoppel claim solely on those alleged oral promises. As plaintiff cannot base her estoppel claim on oral promises, she can only base her claim on written documents proving that her benefits had previously been bridged, and therefore, they should continue to be bridged. Two questions then arise: (1) Should the record of written documentation have been established during the administrative appeals, or can it be established at this stage in the litigation? and (2) Who had the burden of developing that record? An ERISA beneficiary is required to exhaust all of her ERISA claims, including estoppel claims, during her administrative appeals. Jacobs, 356 F.Supp.2d at 892-93 (<HOLDING>). See also Stark v. PPM America, Inc., 354 F.3d
holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding that because the appellant did not present a question before a hearing examiner or district council the question was not properly before this court holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review because the aliens did not appeal the ijs denial of their motion to reopen to the board resulting in failure to exhaust their administrative remedies holding that plaintiff could not present his erisa estoppel claim to the district court because he did not properly exhaust it before the administrative review board