1. Whether the Supreme Court's dicta in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co v. Bruch , 489 U.S. 101, 109 S. Ct. 948, 103 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1989) and the Supreme Court's ruling in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn , 554 U.S. 105, 128 S. Ct. 2343, 171 L. Ed. 2d 299 (2008) render it inappropriate for courts to apply an "arbitrary and capricious" standard to resolve ERISA cases involving plan beneficiary challenges to a negative benefit eligibility determination by a plan administrator afforded discretion over such determination by terms of the governing ERISA plan.

2. Whether the Supreme Court's holding in Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB , 340 U.S. 474, 71 S. Ct. 456, 95 L. Ed. 456 (1951) requires courts engaging in "substantial evidence" review of ERISA claims to seriously consider and weigh evidence opposing the administrator's decision.

Whether the Supreme Court's dicta in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co v. Bruch and the Supreme Court's ruling in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn render it inappropriate for courts to apply an 'arbitrary and capricious' standard to resolve ERISA cases involving plan beneficiary challenges to a negative benefit eligibility determination by a plan administrator afforded discretion