S.Ct. 1965 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 134 . Defendant's evidentiary submission, Tab 1 (CSC group policy), at 14. 135 . Id. 136 . CNA2-192. 137 . Id. 138 . CNA2-191. 139 . CNA2-189. 140 . CNA2-185. 141 . See CNA2-184. 142 . For example, plaintiff was treated for sinusitus and hemorrhoids. 143 . The court is mindful of non-binding case law supporting the proposition that the administrator of a plan which does not explicitly require objective medical evidence as proof of loss to support a disability claim should not require such evidence from a claimant who suffers from a condition, such as fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue, which is comprised primarily of a patient's subjective symptoms. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Eastman Kodak Co., 113 F.3d 433, 442-43 (3rd Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Mason v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance
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 it was error for a plan administrator to require the claimant to submit clinical findings to support his diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome when the plan did not require such evidence holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that a rational plan administrator could reject a doctors report when there was no accompanying clinical data to support the conclusion holding that it was wrong for an administrator to require a claimant suffering from fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome to submit objective medical evidence in support of her claim for benefits when the plan did not require such evidence