as a whole is free from conflicts, ambiguities, or gaps, whether all factual issues have been resolved, and whether the claimant’s entitlement to benefits is clear under the applicable legal rules.” Id. at 1103-04. The Court must “assess whether there are outstanding issues requiring resolution before considering whether to hold that the [evidence] is credible as a matter of law.” Id. at 1105. Third, if the Court concludes that no outstanding issues remain and further proceedings would not be useful, it may find the medical evidence true as a matter of law and then determine whether the record, taken as a whole, leaves “not the slightest uncertainty as to the outcome of [the] proceeding.” Id. at 1101 (alteration in original) (citation omitted); see also Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1021 (<HOLDING>). Only when all three elements are satisfied
holding that district courts retain flexibility to remand for further proceedings when the record as a whole creates serious doubt as to whether the claimant is in fact disabled within the meaning of the social security act holding that the distinct courts decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion holding that the district courts decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion holding that a failure of an erisa plan administrator to address the social security administrations determination that claimant is totally disabled is yet another factor that can render the denial of further longterm disability benefits arbitrary and capricious holding the courts scope of review is  limited to determining whether the commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the commissioners findings of fact 