for delay.” The October 1992 letter states that though it was two years since his retirement, “as yet my retirement pay has not been finalized ... I have no idea why the inordinate delay.” Plan administrator Iris Matsumoto characterized the first letter from Bell as a request for a “final calculation,” and apologized “for the lengthy delay in processing your final benefit calculation.” Thus “although this letter could have been more artfully drafted, viewing the letter in its entirety and considering [the administrator’s] understanding that a request was being made,” we hold that the letters “constituted a sufficient written request.” Boone v. Leavenworth Anesthesia, Inc., 20 F.3d 1108, 1111 (10th Cir.1994); see also Fisher v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 895 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Bell is squarely in the class of
holding that a request is sufficiently clear if the administrator knew or should have known that plan information was requested holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong holding that the destruction of documents which the party knew or should have known would be relevant to a pending or potential lawsuit is sanctionable holding that one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary