Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and “if the plan administrator ] believe[s] that more information is needed to make a reasoned decision, they must ask for it.” See Booton v. Lockheed Medical Benefit Plan, 110 F.3d 1461, 1463 (9th Cir.1997); see also Saffon v. Wells Fargo Company Long Term Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 870 (9th Cir.2008) (reversing judgment in favor of insurer; noting insurer had failed to explain to claimant “in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant” what “[claimant] must do to perfect her claim”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, however, Broadspire, on three separate occasions, informed plaintiff as to the information it needed. These communications were sufficient to put plaintiff on notice as t 0, at *8-9, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32515, at *25-28 (D.Ariz.2005) (<HOLDING>). With respect to her WC claim, plaintiff 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that supreme court need not consider issue not raised in petition for certiorari (B) holding that juvenile court has no jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims (C) holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary (D) holding plan fiduciary need not consider ssa findings further holding no inference of conflict to be drawn from failure to consider such findings (E) holding that where plaintiffs alleged that the plan suffered significant losses and requested that fiduciaries make good to the plan the losses to the plan they need not seek to recover for all plan participants allegedly injured by the fiduciary breach
Output (English): holding that supreme court need not consider issue not raised in petition for certiorari