Foundation’s internal policies could serve as written modifications of the plan allowing reinstatement despite Robinson’s failure to pay. (Opposition at 5 (citing Weinberger v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 54 Fed.Appx. 553, 2002 WL 31746546 (3rd Cir. Dec. 6, 2002))). Robinson cites irrelevant nonbinding case law and misinterprets applicable precedent. In Weinberger, the court explained that a heightened standard of review applies to decisions made by a plan fiduciary who also makes decisions on eligibility for benefits. Weinberger, 54 Fed.Appx. at 255-56, 2002 WL 31746546, at *2. In that case, the relevant decision involved eligibility under the contract, not cancellation of the contract. Id.,see also Williams v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 373 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). In a previous Order, however, I determined
holding that when applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review the courts role is to determine whether the plan administrators decision was completely unreasonable holding that a reversal of the plan administrators decision is in order under the most deferential arbitrary and capricious standard when no reasonable grounds exist to support the decision holding that under erisa a plan administrators decision to deny an employee longterm disability benefits is arbitrary and capricious if the administrator ignores favorable evidence  and selectively reviews the evidence it does consider holding that a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan holding court must review de novo companys denial of benefits unless benefit plan gives administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to construe terms of plan in which case courts review a benefits denial under an arbitrary and capricious standard