arbitrary and capricious standard, the administrator’s decision is to be upheld as long as the decision is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the plan’s language and the evidence. Daill v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 73 Pension Fund, 100 F.3d 62, 67-68 (7th Cir.1996); Russo v. Health, Welfare & Pension Fund, Local 705, Int’l Broth. of Teamsters, 984 F.2d 762, 765 (7th Cir.1993). Several factors are to be weighed under the arbitrary and capricious standard: “the impartiality of the decisionmak-ing body, the complexity of the i was considered to be disabled in 1987, and because his condition had not improved, he must still have been considered to be disabled, as defined by the insurance policy, in 1996 and today neglects the plain language of the policy. See Daill, 100 F.3d at 68 (<HOLDING>); see also Russo, 984 F.2d at 765 (same).
holding that a statute regulating only hospital rates did not relate to erisa plans merely because it had the net result of increasing insurers and selffunded plans costs of providing benefits holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans holding that a statute relates to erisa plans for the purposes of preemption if it requires the plans to purchase the  benefits specified in the statute when they purchase a certain kind of common insurance policy holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language