opinions in favor of Dr. Truchelut’s opinion that plaintiff is not disabled. Initially, the court notes that Dr. Royster’s opinion is not entitled to any special weight simply because he is plaintiffs treating physician. As the Supreme Court held in Black, & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003), courts in ERISA cases “have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a claimant’s physician; nor may courts impose on plan administrators a discrete burden of explanation when they credit reliable evidence that conflicts with a treating physician’s evaluation.” Id. at 834, 123 S.Ct. 1965. See also Richards v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co., 356 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1286 (S.D.Fla.2004) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Even so, “[p]lan
holding that it is wrong to assume a financial conflict of interest from the fact that the plan administrator is also the insurer holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that it was not wrong for the administrator to rely on the findings of an independent reviewing physician holding that an administrators findings of fact should always be reviewed for an abuse of discretion based on the record before the administrator holding that a district court can rely on the probation report and is not required to make independent findings regarding the defendants financial resources