In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: with “complete and final discretionary authority to interpret the plans and maintain control over the operation and administration of the plans.” Accordingly, the Chevron Plan, via the Services Agreement and the SPD, delegates authority to Aetna regarding benefit eligibility for the Medical Plan. Moreover, in this situation, Aetna made a factual determination that certain diagnostic testing and IVIG treatments were not medically necessary. “[F]actual determinations made by [an] administrator during the course of a benefits review will be rejected only upon the showing of an abuse of discretion.” Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Sterling Chems., Inc., 168 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir.1999); see also Chandler v. Hartford Life, No. 05-50688, 2006 WL 1209363, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr.28, 2006) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp., 168 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion (B) holding that a denial of benefits will not be reviewed de novo where the language of an erisa plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan (C) holding that arbitrary and capricious standard applies to section 1132a1b denial ofbenefits claims if the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan (D) holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion (E) holding that  rjegardless of the administrators ultimate authority to determine benefit eligibility  factual determinations made by the administrator during the course of a benefits review will be rejected only upon the showing of an abuse of discretion 

A: (E)
****
Q: any physician that described her as obese, much less gave an opinion that her weight imposed additional limitations upon her or exacerbated her other conditions. Therefore, even if Reynolds’ silence on the issue of obesity is not deemed to waive consideration of that issue, it does not appear that evidence existed regarding her obesity that the ALJ should have considered. The ALJ also did not err in assessing Reynolds’ credibility. An ALJ is in the best position to observe witnesses’ de meanor and to make an appropriate evaluation as to their credibility. Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir.1997). Therefore, an ALJ’s credibility assessment will not be disturbed “absent compelling reason.” Smith v. Halter, 307 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir.2001); Walters, 127 F.3d at 531 (<HOLDING>). In making a credibility determination, Social 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference (B) holding that the courts conclusion that transfer was appropriate is to be accorded great deference (C) holding that the district courts credibility assessments are entitled to deference and reviewed for clear error (D) recognizing aljs credibility assessment is entitled to great weight and deference (E) holding that an unambiguous plea agreement is entitled to great evidentiary weight

A: (D)
****
Q: noted at 152 N.C. App. 477, 2002 WL 1914015, at *7, 2002 N.C. App. LEXIS 2144, at *19-20 (Aug. 20, 2002) (unpublished opinion); Hart v. Pharaoh, 1961 OK 45, 359 P.2d 1074, 1079; Berg v. Wilson, 353 S.W.3d 166, 180 (Tex. App. 2011); Hidden Meadows Dev. Co. v. Mills, 590 P.2d 1244, 1248 (Utah 1979); Zweber v. Melar Ltd., 2004 WI App 185, ¶ 10, 276 Wis. 2d 156, 687 N.W.2d 818. But see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 405.32 (requiring cancellation of lis pendens notice if the filer failed to prove his claim at trial); Del. Code Ann. tit. 25, § 1608 (granting discretion to cancel lis pendens if the filer is not likely to prevail); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2731 (permitting courts to cancel lis pendens in certain circumstances during litigation); Sloane v. Davis, 433 So. 2d 374, 375 (La. Ct. App. 1983) (<HOLDING>); Inv’rs Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 169, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal (B) holding that notice of administrative forfeiture sent to prisoner did not require actual notice to the property owner only notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action (C) holding that statute permitting cancellation of lis pendens  at any time  allowed cancellation during pendency of appeal emphasis omitted quoting nd cent code  280508 (D) holding that appeal did not prevent cancellation of lis pendens under statute reading in part that lis pendens shall be canceled  w hen judgment is rendered in the action or proceeding against the party who filed the notice of the pendency thereof     quoting la code civ proc ann art 3753 (E) holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding

A:
(D)
****