in 29 U.S.C. § 1133 and the implementing regulations “have been read as ensuring that a full and fair review is conducted by the administrator, that a claimant is enabled to prepare an appeal for further administrative review or recourse to the federal courts, and that the courts can ... review! ] a claim denial.” Ellis, 126 F.3d at 236-37 (emphasis added). For that reason, this court has previously held, albeit in an unpublished opinion, that 29 U.S.C. § 1133 and 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1 require that judicial review be “limited to whether the rationale set forth in the initial denial notice is reasonable.” Thompson v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 30 Fed.Appx. 160, 164 (4th Cir.2002) (unpublished) (emphasis added); see also Robinson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 443 F.3d 389, 393 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458
holding that notice must state the specific grounds for the departure holding that under  1133 the administrative review must focus on the specific reason for the administrators decision cited in the initial denial notice 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 evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record