in the record fairly detracts from” its determination, substantial evidence requires “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Id. (citation omitted). Because MetLife suffers from a conflict of interest in this case — a conflict created by the fact that MetLife pays benefits out of its own pocket and determines whether an employee is eligible — we “dial back our deference,” weighing the conflict as a “factor in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion.” Weber, 541 F.3d at 1010; Holcomb v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 578 F.3d 1187, 1192-93 (10th Cir. 2009) . The plaintiff nevertheless retains the burden of showing abuse. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 116, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008); Holcomb, 578 F.3d at 1192-93 (10th Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the district court that Ms.
recognizing 10th circuits finding of breach of trust recognizing statutory abrogation of rule of liberality in workers compensation claims recognizing abrogation of kassen recognizing abrogation of fought v unum life ins co of am 379 f3d 997 1005 10th cir2004 recognizing abrogation