The claimant must then be given “the opportunity to submit written comments, documents, l’ecords, and other information relating to the claim for benefits,” and the claims administrator must take any such materials submitted into account in deciding the appeal. § 2560.503-l(h)(2)(ii), (iv). Under either standard of review—de novo or abuse of discretion— the administrator must comply with these procedural guidelines. See Weaver v. Phoenix Home Life Mut. Ins. Co., 990 F.2d 154, 158 & n. 3 (4th Cir.1993). The safegu 955, 974 (9th Cir.2006) (“[A]n administrator that adds, in its final decision, a new reason for denial, a maneuver that has the effect of insulating the rationale from review, contravenes the purpose of ERISA.”); McCartha v. Nat’l City Corp., 419 F.3d 437, 446 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Abram v. Cargill, Inc., 395 F.3d 882, 886
holding that although the denial notice that claimants received failed to satisfy the requirements of due process the only claimants who could have been injured by the inadequacy are those who detrimentally relied on the inadequate denial notice holding that the consideration of the fact that claimant collected unemployment benefits while he was allegedly disabled was not a ground for reversal where there was other medical and vocational evidence supporting denial of benefits and claimants receipt of unemployment benefits was not decisive factor in denial of benefits holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding that an administrator was not in substantial compliance with  1133 where the initial denial notice omitted one of the grounds later relied on for the denial of benefits holding the denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue which is later submitted to the jury is not reviewable