Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 2004. Because Prudential arbitrarily denied Mr. Smith’s benefits as of that date, the Plan Administrator did not examine evidence regarding Mr. Smith’s disability after July 2, 2004, nor is there sufficient evidence in the record for the Court to do so. Because the administrative record is insufficient to determine the end date of Mr. Smith’s short-term disability (assuming it did end), the Court will remand the case to the Plan Administrator for further evaluation consistent with this opinion. See Smothers v. Multi-Tool, Inc./Multi-Plastics, Inc. Employee Health & Welfare Plan, 298 F.3d 191, 200 (3d Cir.2002) (remanding case to plan administrator for first consideration of facts newly made relevant by the Court’s opinion); Zervos v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 277 F.3d 635, 648 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth 
 Holding statements: (A) holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator (B) holding that remand is the proper course for handling a case where the factual record is incomplete (C) holding that it is appropriate to remand to the plan administrator when the administrative record is incomplete (D) holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan (E) holding that one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary
Output (English): holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator