decision was “based upon a reasonable interpretation of the plan’s terms and was made in good faith.” Bendixen, 185 F.3d at 944. ERISA plan administrators abuse their discretion by rendering decisions without an explanation, by construing the terms of the policy in a way that conflicts with the policy’s plain language, or by relying on “clearly erroneous findings of fact in making benefit determinations.” Id. The mere presence of contradictory evidence does not necessarily amount to an abuse of discretion. Id. Plaintiff has offered no admissible evidence that UNUM’s interpretation of the preexisting condition clause in the policy is not reasonable. Accordingly, UNUM’s interpretation was not an abuse of discretion. See Kracht v. Aalfs Assoc. H.C.P., 905 F.Supp. 604, 614 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (<HOLDING>). Accord Bullwinkel v. New England Mut. Life
recognizing that before a special condition of probation may be imposed there must be an oral pronouncement of the condition at sentencing holding that where the claimants cancer was not evident as a condition before the coverage period began and where the symptoms before diagnosis were nonspecific coverage should not be excluded under the preexisting condition clause holding that receiving advice or treatment during the exclusionary period for a condition which proves to be the same condition the claimant seeks benefits for qualifies as a preexisting condition regardless of whether there was an accurate diagnosis holding that treatment for symptoms of undiagnosed multiple sclerosis activated the preexisting condition exclusion and stating that there is no requirement that a diagnosis definite or otherwise of the preexisting condition must be made during the preexisting condition period holding on rehearing that exclusion for disabilities caused by a preexisting medical condition would not support denial of benefits caused by staph infection resulting from surgery for a preexisting condition