Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that under the deferential Firestone standard of review, an administrator's determination that the plan authorizes certain remedial actions or measures is necessarily unreasonable merely because the plan is silent on the matter

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court held in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989), that a highly deferential standard of judicial review applies to interpretations of ERISA plans by administrators to whom the plans delegate interpretive discretion. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Eight Circuit erred in holding— consistent with decisions of the First Circuit but in conflict with those of the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits—that under the deferential Firestone standard of review, an administrator's determination that the plan authorizes certain remedial actions or measures 1s necessarily unreasonable merely because the plan is silent on the matter. 2. Whether the Firestone deference standard allows courts to reject an otherwise reasonable plan construction that is lawful under ERISA but, in the court’s view, pushes ERISA’s boundaries.