for the denial and afford the participant a reasonable opportunity for a “full and fair review by the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim.” 29 U.S.C. § 1133(1), (2). Only substantial compliance with these requirements is necessary. Hackett v. Xerox Corp. Long-Term Disability Income Plan, 315 F.3d 771, 775 (7th Cir.2003). In this case, the NEBF, through its Trustees, did not afford Hilderbrand a full and fair review of his claim because the NEBF Trustees did not consider Hammond’s vocational report. While the plan administrator is not required to expressly address each piece of evidence, the administrator must address any reliable, contrary evidence presented by the claimant. See Love v. Nat’l City Corp. Welfare Benefits Plan, 574 F.3d 392, 397 (7th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Des Armo v. Kohler Co. Pension Plan, No.
holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant 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 holding that a plan administrator must address any reliable contrary evidence holding that an administrator need not address each piece of evidence holding that the plan administrator abused its discretion when it ignored contrary evidence without explanation