v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506, 512, 130 S.Ct. 1640, 176 L.Ed.2d 469 (2010) (indicating that the appropriate standard for reviewing an administrator’s benefits determination depends on these three variables). Regardless, apart from his argument that MetLife operated under a conflict of interest, see infra pp. 217-18, Roganti does not dispute that we should review MetLife’s decision under the arbitrary- and-capricious standard. Any such argument is therefore forfeited. See Presidential Gardens Assocs. v. United States ex rel. Sec’y of Hous. & Urban Dev., 175 F.3d 132, 141 (2d Cir.1999). 8 . The nature of a claimant’s burden may depend in part on the specific terms of the plan at issue. See Gaither v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 394 F.3d 792, 804 (10th Cir.2004); see also Hobson, 574 F.3d at 88 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the parties have not called our
holding that metlife abused its discretion by requiring the plaintiff meet an additional requirement for eligibility beyond those imposed by the plan the administrator cannot exclude a claim for lack of objective medical evidence unless the objective medical evidence standard was made clear plain and conspicuous enough in the policy to negate plaintiffs objectively reasonable expectations of coverage  holding that it was wrong for an administrator to require a claimant suffering from fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome to submit objective medical evidence in support of her claim for benefits when the plan did not require such evidence holding that plan administrator cannot exclude a claim for lack of objective medical evidence unless the objective medical evidence standard was made clear plain and conspicuous enough in the policy to negate layman sic plaintiffs objectively reasonable expectations of coverage  holding that plan administrator could appropriately require objective medical evidence supporting disability claim where such a requirement is not contradicted by any provision of the administrators own policy holding that an insurance company could not deny a claim for longterm disability benefits based on a lack of objective medical evidence when the original policy did not refer to the objective medical evidence standard and never defined that term