y. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 524 F.3d 1241, 1247 (11th Cir. 2008). iy. discussion Before we can examine the merits of this appeal, we first must grapple with these antecedent questions: (1) what is the appropriate standard of review; (2) what record evidence should the district court properly have taken into account in rendering its decision; arid (3) who had the burden of proof. We address each in turn. A.The District Court Utilized the Correct Standard The parties do not dispute that the Plan and Policy confer discretion on John Hancock in adjudicating claims. Further, the Policy issued by John Hancock provides that the claimant for benefits must submit “Proof of Claim satisfactory to Us.” See Tippitt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 457 F.3d 1227, 1233-34 (11th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Carr’s argument on appeal, the
holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator holding that similar language conferred discretion on the plan administrator holding that because the spd at issue stated that it is made part of the group policy its terms were sufficient to find that the plan conferred discretion on the plan administrator holding that language determined on the basis of medical evidence satisfactory to the committee sufficiently granted plan administrator discretion 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