prescribed or approved by [an] attending physician.” Finally, the SPD vests Aetna, the Chevron Plan’s t 213); Vercher, 379 F.3d at 226 (noting “that even where the plan does not expressly give the administrator discretionary authority, ‘for factual determinations under ERISA plans, the abuse of discretion standard of review is the appropriate standard’ ”) (quoting Pierre v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co./Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 932 F.2d 1552, 1562 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 973, 112 S.Ct. 453, 116 L.Ed.2d 470 (1991)); Sweatman v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 39 F.3d 594, 598 (5th Cir.1994) (commenting that “district courts in the Fifth Circuit review under an abuse of discretion standard a plan administrator’s factual determinations ... ”); see also Schadler, 147 F.3d at 395 (<HOLDING>). The underlying factual determination at issue
holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion 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 the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error