context: We also find that no conflict arises from the Plan's grant of discretion to Blue Cross to determine whether a procedure is experimental or investigative. Although the SPD contains no such language, we find no conflict between the absence of discretionary language in the SPD and its presence in the Plan. Vesting the plan administrator with discretion in making coverage decisions simply does not conflict with the SPD's silence on the matter.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 45 F.3d 1317, 1321
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language, the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled
citation_a.sentence: See Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., 45 F.3d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language, the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled); see also Jensen v. SIPCO, Inc., 38 F.3d 945, 952 (8th Cir.1994) (explaining that the plan will control “when the plan document is specific and the SPD is silent on a particular matter”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 38 F.3d 945, 952
citation_b.parenthetical: explaining that the plan will control "when the plan document is specific and the SPD is silent on a particular matter"
citation_b.sentence: See Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., 45 F.3d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language, the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled); see also Jensen v. SIPCO, Inc., 38 F.3d 945, 952 (8th Cir.1994) (explaining that the plan will control “when the plan document is specific and the SPD is silent on a particular matter”).