Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the district court’s choice and application of the standard of review to the Plan’s decision. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review- the Plan’s decision denying Barnes and other “Lump Sum” class members additional retirement benefits for an abuse of discretion with scepticism. See Burke v. Pitney Bowes Inc. Long-Term Disability Plan, 544 F.3d 1016, 1023-24 (9th Cir.2008). Where, as here, a plan unambiguously grants an administrator discretionary authority, the court reviews the administrator’s decision for abuse of discretion. Id. In determining the standard of review, we take into account the existence of a structural conflict of interest. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 965 (<HOLDING>); Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plan administrator that was also insurer operated under conflict of interest (B) holding that when the insurer is also the plan administrator we have recognized something akin to a rebuttable presumption of a palpable conflict of interest (C) holding the district court erred by finding an automatic conflict of interest merely because insurer and administrator were the same (D) holding that it is wrong to assume a financial conflict of interest from the fact that the plan administrator is also the insurer (E) holding that a structural conflict of interest exists when an insurer acts as both the plan administrator and the funding source
Output (English): holding the district court erred by finding an automatic conflict of interest merely because insurer and administrator were the same