under the Retirement Plans in order to calculate the appropriate benefits, ... [i]n the absence of an allocation to a particular year or. over particular years it is not clear what, if any, impact on benefit accruals the Award would have.” J.A. 831. 6 . The district court rejected MetLife's res ju-dicata and collateral estoppel arguments on the ground that Roganti’s claim in this federal action arose after the arbitration and, therefore, that Roganti could not have had a “full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue in the prior arbitral forum.” Roganti I, 2012 WL 2324476, at *4-5. 7 . Some authority arguably suggests that an administrator’s interpretation of an arbitral award is more appropriately reviewed de novo. See Hogan v. Raytheon Co., 302 F.3d 854, 856 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Dial v. NFL Player Supplemental Disability
holding that we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo holding that de novo review was appropriate where administrators decision turned on interpretation of divorce decree holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review recognizing de novo standard of review