benefit is close to one thousand dollars per month. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Doyle v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 144 F.3d 181, 183 (1st Cir.1998). Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals no genuine issue as to any material fact and when the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In deciding whether summary judgment is appropriate, we are required here to give deference to Unum’s interpretation of its own policy, because the Policy grants Unum “discretionary authority both to determine an employee’s eligibility for benefits and to construe the terms of th[e][P]olicy.” Policy at L-PS-2; see Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Pari-Fasano v. ITT Hartford Life and Accident
holding that plan fiduciary is entitled to deferential review if empowered by the plan to construe its terms in order to determine benefit eligibility holding that arbitrary and capricious standard applies to section 1132a1b denial ofbenefits claims if the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan holding that a denial of benefits will not be reviewed de novo where the language of an erisa plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the 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 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