Should this Court resolve the conflict among the
Circuits about whether it would be futile to require an ERISA plan participant upon remand to retroactively seek benefits under the "any occupation" definition for total disability when the same decision maker had already denied him benefits under the less stringent "own occupation" standard?

Should this Court resolve the conflict among the Circuits about whether it would be futile to require an ERISA plan participant upon remand to retroactively seek benefits under the 'any occupation' definition for total disability when the same decision maker had already denied him benefits under the less stringent 'own occupation' standard?