and the plan itself do not conflict, our cases provide no prohibition against review of the official plan itself for a fuller understanding of the plan’s terms. Indeed, in those circumstances the plan is the controlling document for determining the scope of benefits provided.” Id. We also find that no conflict arises from the Plan’s grant of discretion to Blue Cross to determine whether a procedure is experimental or investigative. Although the SPD contains no such language, we find no conflict between the absence of discretionary language in the SPD and its presence in the Plan. Vesting the plan administrator with discretion in making coverage decisions simply does not conflict with the SPD’s silence on the matter. See Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., 45 F.3d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Jensen v. SIPCO, Inc., 38 F.3d 945,
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 one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications  are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description 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 that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled