Volynskaya

MEMORANDUM *

Illiena Volynskaya appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to her employer’s welfare benefits plan, a plan insured by MetLife and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

The district court correctly concluded that the plan “unambiguously provide[s] discretion” to MetLife “to determine eligibility for benefits.” 2 MetLife clearly satisfies ERISA’s definition of a “plan fiduciary,” 3 and the plan unambiguously conveys discretion on plan fiduciaries. The fact that confusion or conflicting decisions by fiduciaries might result from the plan’s language under a different set of facts is irrelevant here. No such confusion has resulted under these facts.

We vacate and remand the remainder of the district court’s decision in light of Aba-tie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance Com pany. 4 After the district court issued its *486 decision, this Circuit fundamentally changed the manner in which courts review a decision by a fiduciary with a conflict of interest. Abatie held that a district court, even when reviewing for abuse of…