REX T. KEARNEY, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-16539
No. 96-16701
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
D.C. No. CV-S-95-415-WBS/JFM

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 5, 1997 -- San Francisco, California
Before: Joseph T. Sneed, Betty B. Fletcher, and Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judges.

 Marjorie E. Manning, T.D. Bolling, Jr., Bolling Walter & Gawthrop, Sacramento, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.

 Shawn Hanson, Michael A. Conley, Pillsbury Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, California, for the defendant-appellee.

Filed April 21, 1998

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

 Plaintiff-appellant Rex T. Kearney, Jr. is an attorney who was a civil trial partner, and managing partner, at the law firm of Ingoglia, Marskey & Kearney. In 1992, following open heart surgery, he began receiving disability benefits under a Long Term Disability Plan issued by Defendant-Appellee Standard Insurance Company. Within two years of approving such benefits, however, Standard terminated them. Kearney eventually brought suit under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (1994), but the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Standard primarily because in its view "the fact that [Kearney] should, like most of us, avoid severe emotional stress or very hard work does not warrant the conclusion that he cannot practice as a trial attorney." We find both the district court' s "diagnosis" and its conclusion very much open to question. Therefore, we reverse and remand.

 Because we must review this case de novo,[FOOTNOTE 1] we set forth the facts in some detail.

 Rex Kearney regularly worked long hours trying civil lawsuits until he encountered health problems. As a trial attorney, a large part of Kearney' s success was due to his ability to work very hard while retaining excellent cognitive and verbal skills, often under severe pressure. Indeed, one doctor described him as having a classic "Type A" personality -- a frequently obsessive, compulsive worker. On November 3, 1992, however, Kearney -- who had already suffered a heart attack in 1981 at the age of 43 and undergone angioplasty of the diagonal artery in 1988 -- experienced chest pain and nearly collapsed in court during a trial. Six days later, Kearney underwent five-vessel coronary bypass surgery, mitral valve repair, and a closure of a patent pinhole in his heart muscle.

 About a month after the surgery, Dr. Stephen Morrison, a Board Certified cardiologist, examined Kearney and noted that he was experiencing musculoskeletal symptoms which should resolve in the next several weeks. Dr. Morrison added, however:

I am also concerned about his memory and I am [sic] told him that I am impressed that this occurs frequently after bypass surgery, and I am hopeful that this will also significantly improve as it is a very large part of his occupation to have a very adequate and perhaps excellent memory as he is a practicing attorney.

Kearney forwarded this letter and a request for disability benefits to his firm' s insurer, Standard Insurance Company ("Standard" ).

 Part 6 of Standard' s insurance policy issued to Kearney, the "Long Term Disability Insuring Clause," reads:

Subject to all the terms of the GROUP POLICY, STANDARD will pay the LTD benefit described in Part 8 upon receipt of satisfactory written proof that you have become DISABLED while insured under the GROUP POLICY.

The definition of "disability" is set forth in Part 5 of the policy and reads:

A. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY FOR ATTORNEYS.

You are only required to be DISABLED from your specialty in the practice of law.

You are DISABLED from your own specialty in the practice of law if, as a result of SICKNESS, ACCIDENTAL BODILY INJURY or PREGNANCY, you are EITHER:

1. Unable to perform with reasonable continuity the material duties of your specialty in the practice of law; OR

2. Unable to earn more than 80% of your INDEX PREDISABILITY EARNINGS while working in your specialty in the practice of law.

Under this definition of DISABILITY, you will be considered DISABLED while working in another occupation if you are DISABLED from your specialty in the practice of law.

On December 29, 1992, Standard approved Kearney' s claim for disability benefits.

 Over the next several months, Dr. Morrison continued to see Kearney. At one point, Dr. Morrison rated Kearney as a "Class I" cardiac patient -- a patient in whom ordinary activity should not cause undue fatigue, pain, or palpitation. At the same time, however, Dr. Morrison noted Kearney experienced premature ventricular contractions during his examination. In a later report, on May 11, 1993, Dr. Morrison reclassified Kearney as a "Class II" patient and wrote that he believed that he would be unable to return to his usual occupation for 6-12 months and, then, up to only 75% of his pre-surgery workload.

 During the same time period, several other doctors examined Kearney and reached similar results. The first was Kearney' s treating physician for 20 years, Dr. Lehman. Initially, Dr. Lehman noted that Kearney "feels he' s lost 20% of his intelligence off the top." In a letter submitted to Standard on February 26, 1993, Dr. Lehman summarized the results of the cardiology examination he performed on Kearney:

Unfortunately, the patient is manifesting evidences of cognitive impairment, which has been well reported after coronary artery bypass surgery, particularly, as in Mr. Kearney' s situation, when the patient does truly have open heart surgery. . . . At the present time, I would have to consider him completely or near completely disabled, though most of these patients recover function within 6 months, and I am hopeful that we still might see some improvement in the relatively near future.

Dr. Lehman diagnosed Kearney with status post-coronary artery bypass and mitral valve angioplasty with "persistent fatigue and diminished intellectual capacity."

 Kearney' s psychiatrist, Dr. Kaufman, also submitted medical data to Standard. Dr. Kaufman reported that Kearney had a loss of memory and knowledge. Kearney, for example, failed to recollect a client with whom he had met recently. Dr. Kaufman stated that Kearney suffered from "more than average" loss of memory for this age and concluded that he would not be able to do trial work. The danger for Kearney, according to Dr. Kaufman, was that "[Kearney] doesn' t know what he doesn' t know."

 The final doctor to examine Kearney during this period was Dr. Peter Heublein, a medical neurologist. Dr. Heublein noted in his report, which was forwarded to Standard, that Kearney stated that "he cannot return to work as a litigating attorney under the present circumstances." Dr. Heublein wrote that it was impossible to tell whether Kearney was suffering from organic brain syndrome or anxiety and depression-induced memory loss. Furthermore, Dr. Heublein stated that, because Kearney' s MRI scan was "unremarkable," psychometric testing would be necessary to document Kearney' s organic memory and cognitive disturbances as well as potential psychological components.

 As concrete evidence of his disability, Kearney informed Standard that during two days of light work -- a settlement conference and two depositions -- he became "stressed out," had "PVC" palpitations, and was hospitalized briefly. Subsequent stress EKG' s while Kearney was on a treadmill did not reproduce those symptoms, indicating that they were most likely stress-induced. Once Kearney was out of the hospital and away from work, he returned to rehabilitation without further problems. In November 1993, due to his debilitated condition, Kearney closed his law office. Kearney also explained to an investigator that he had to cease teaching continuing legal education courses because he could no longer recall the civil code in a manner sufficient to permit him to answer questions. He also stated that he was able, with adequate rest, to play a few sets of doubles tennis on the weekends.

 Reports submitted to Standard through the rest of 1993 continued to confirm Kearney' s cognitive and stamina impairments. Dr. Lehman sent Standard a statement concluding that Kearney' s "intellectual impairment precluded legal work." Dr. Lehman was unable to determine when Kearney could return to work, and added, "It' s been so long, I doubt he' ll recover, unfortunately." In addition, in December, 1993, Dr. Morrison informed Standard that Kearney' s condition was unchanged and that he continued to be restricted by his poor memory. Dr. Morrison said that he did not know when Kearney could return to work, but recommended a follow-up appointment in six months.

 In April, 1994, Standard asked another doctor of its choosing, Dr. Randall Smith, to conduct an "independent" medical examination of Kearney. Dr. Smith, a neuropsychologist, reported that he found in Kearney no evidence of cognitive deficiencies based on formal testing; that mental status exams resulted in exceptional performance; and that there was no evidence of aphasia, paraphysis, or word-finding pauses. Dr. Smith reported that Kearney' s cognitive "Shipley test" indicated average abstract reasoning skills and above average verbal skills. He characterized Kearney as possessing "superior general memory functioning and unimpaired verbal and visual memory functions" in light of these "average" scores, but noted that Kearney had done "somewhat more poorly on a measure of active attention and concentration." Finally, Dr. Smith reported that Kearney told him he had a hobby of rebuilding and driving race cars in excess of 100 miles per hour.

 Despite the fact that Kearney' s responses to a test administered by Dr. Smith indicated that Kearney' s description of his disability symptoms was truthful, realistic, internally consistent, and suggested no psychiatric diagnosis, Dr. Smith concluded that Kearney' s inability to return to work as an attorney was motivational in origin. Dr. Smith summarized his results as follows:

[M]y evaluation of Mr. Kearney does not reveal any evidence of cognitive, verbal skill, or memory deficits which would preclude him from effectively functioning as an attorney at the present time. . . . I can certainly find no evidence of neuropsychological deficits which would prompt him to be labeled disabled. Those physicians who have drawn such conclusions have done so simply based on the patient' s self-report, and not as a result of formal or systematic evaluation.

  Based on Dr. Smith' s report -- specifically, his medical diagnosis and his description of Kearney' s hobby of driving race cars --  Robert Case, Standard' s claim analyst, notified Kearney by letter that his long term disability benefits would be terminated because Standard believed he was no longer unable to perform his specialty as a trial attorney.

 Kearney soon wrote back to Standard urging it to reverse its decision. In support of his position, he enclosed recent reports from Dr. Irwin Weinreb, a cardiologist, and Dr. Robert Bittle, a diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, that stated that Kearney probably was disabled from working as a trial attorney and that, upon further testing, this conclusion could be confirmed.

 Dr. Weinreb' s complete medical-cardiac evaluation revealed two abnormal EKG' s and demonstrated that Kearney was prone to chronic fatigue and reduced stamina. Dr. Weinreb suspected that Kearney suffered from diminished memory owing to his heart condition and stated that, without question, he had naturally progressing coronary occlusive atherosclerotic artery vascular disease from 1988 forward. Dr. Weinreb concluded that while Kearney could do legal work outside of trial work, he should be precluded "from very heavy work and very severe emotional distress," and "certainly should avoid intense emotional stress and not be on a very tight time schedule."

 Dr. Bittle' s report stated that Kearney' s cardiac impairment caused chronic and easily induced fatigue, and reduced stamina. Dr. Bittle also reported that although most neurocognitive deficits tend to improve with time following cardiac surgery, he believed that Kearney fell into the minority who retain neurocognitive behavioral problems. Cognitive problems that might appear subtle, Dr. Bittle emphasized, greatly increase in the face of the stress and situations when one must remember a multitude of facts. Thus, Dr. Bittle concluded that although Dr. Smith may have correctly concluded that Kearney could return to some type of legal work, it was "highly medically probable" that his cognitive deficiency interfered significantly with his ability to function in the highly complex arena of trial work. Equally important, Dr. Bittle stated that more sophisticated testing than Dr. Smith' s was needed in order to determine the extent of Kearney' s potentially subtle but significant residual cognitive deficits. He explained that further neurophysiological studies could document the problems of which Kearney complained, but that Dr. Smith had not conducted such tests.

 Dr. Fraback, a rheumatologist employed by Standard, was the first Standard doctor to review Kearney' s supplemental reports, although he never examined Kearney himself. Because Dr. Fraback viewed Kearney' s doctors' results as "suspect," he preliminarily concluded on the basis of the medical reports that Kearney would be able to practice as a trial attorney. (Dr. Fraback provided no explanation regarding his knowledge of the duties of a trial attorney.) At the same time, however, he strongly advised Standard to procure Dr. Weinreb' s EKG' s and other medical data for further study. If the EKG' s were accurate, Dr. Fraback explained, then Kearney' s heart condition would indeed constitute a significant impairment.

 In an addendum to his earlier report, Dr. Smith also reviewed the reports of Dr. Weinreb and Dr. Bittle. Without performing any additional physical examination or analysis, Dr. Smith said that he found no neuropsychological reason Kearney could not return to work as an attorney, "even in a trial setting." At the same time, however, Dr. Smith conceded that "whether there are cardiovascular preclusions to returning to the work of a trial attorney is outside of the realm of my expertise to determine." Finally, he admitted to not performing the tests that Kearney' s doctors recommended, but reminded Standard that he had not been asked to perform such tests and claimed that, given Kearney' s symptoms, they were unnecessary in any event.

 Standard never sought to obtain the medical data that Dr. Fraback recommended it review. Instead, on January 27, 1995, its Quality Assurance Unit reviewed Kearney' s claim and decided not to reverse its decision to terminate his long term disability benefits. Standard wrote:

The occupation of a trial attorney is sedentary and falls well within the physical restrictions outlined by D. Weinreb. Much of the work involves conducting research and does not require being in court or on a very tight time schedule.

. . . We do not dispute that Mr. Kearney cannot continue to work 75 hours per week managing the business end of his law firm, trying his own cases, and running his leasing company, in addition to pursuing his hobby of racing cars.

. . . [However, t]he issue upon which we must focus is whether or not he has the physical and mental capabilities to perform, with reasonable continuity, the material duties of a trial attorney, as it is performed in the general economy. Based on our review, we do not find satisfactory evidence to support your client' s claim that he is so impaired mentally and physically that he is unable to practice as a trial attorney.

On March 7, 1995, having exhausted his administrative remedies, Kearney filed the instant suit, alleging that Standard had terminated his benefits in violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (1994).

 After the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Standard. First, the court held that Kearney was entitled to a de novo review of the record, but limited its scope of review to the evidence before Standard when it denied benefits for the last time. Hence, the court prevented Kearney from offering expert evidence describing the material duties of a person engaged in his specialty, as well as additional medical evidence elaborating on his physical condition and on the relationship between cardiac impairments and performance of a trial lawyer' s duties. In a second order, the court ruled that Kearney' s condition failed, as a matter of law, to constitute a disability under the terms of the policy. The court concluded that:

The fact that plaintiff should, like most of us, avoid severe emotional stress or very hard work does not warrant the conclusion that he cannot practice as a trial attorney. . . .

. . . .

[T]here is no question that plaintiff' s physical and mental stamina has been weakened by his heart condition. Unfortunately, the LTD policy does not insure that he would forever remain at his former state of health and stamina. Without sufficient evidence that the condition left him so disabled that he cannot perform the functions of a trial attorney, plaintiff' s claim fails.

In addition, the court held that the second definition of "disabled" in the long term disability policy -- the inability to earn 80% of predisability earning while working in the attorney' s specialty -- did not apply because Kearney was not working at the time Standard decided to terminate his claim.[FOOTNOTE 2]

 Kearney then filed a motion under Rule 59(e) to vacate the judgment or, in the alternative, for entry of a new and different judgment. The district court denied his motion without oral argument and ordered him to pay attorneys' fees to Standard to compensate it for the cost of litigating his motion.

 Kearney now appeals both of the district court' s decisions, arguing that the district court should have granted summary judgment in his favor (or, at least, should have denied Standard' s motion for summary judgment) and that it erred in assessing attorneys' fees against him on his Rule 59(e) motion.

 In Parts I and II, we determine the proper standard and scope of judicial review of Standard' s decision to deny Kearney disability benefits. Then, in Part III, we review the district court' s decision upholding the denial of benefits. Finally, in Part IV, we address the award of attorneys' fees.

 Kearney' s policy read, in relevant part, that Standard would pay long term disability benefits "upon receipt of satisfactory written proof that you have become DISABLED while insured under the GROUP POLICY." Because the district court found that this clause did not "unambiguously vest[ ] the administrator with discretionary power" to determine eligibility for long term disability benefits, it reviewed the case de novo. Standard contends that, particularly due to our intervening holding in Snow v. Standard Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 327, 330 (9th Cir. 1996), the policy does vest discretionary authority in the administrator; thus, it asserts, the district court and this court must review the administrator' s decision for an abuse of discretion. Standard is mistaken. We have never held that so imprecise and ambiguous a provision as contained in Kearney' s policy vests discretion in the administrator, and we decline to do so now.

  In an action to recover benefits under an ERISA plan, the district court must review the administrator' s denial of benefits de novo "unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the plan." Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). When the administrator retains such discretionary authority, the district court ordinarily will review the administrator' s determinations for an abuse of discretion. See Snow, 87 F.3d at 330; Winters v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 F.3d 550, 552 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 276 (1995). If the plan' s funding source and its administrator are the same entity, however, and if facts suggest that the entity may have acted out of self-interest, the denial of benefits will be subject to de novo review. See Lang v. Long-Term Disability Plan, 125 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 1997); Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., 45 F.3d 1317, 1322-23 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, de novo review is warranted for two reasons, either one of which would be sufficient: (1) Standard did not retain discretionary authority and (2) its decision may have been affected by a conflict of interest.

  First, we have previously explained that a plan gives the fiduciary the authority to determine eligibility only if the plan includes at least "one important discretionary element, and the power to apply that element is unambiguously retained by its administrator." Bogue v. Ampex Corp., 976 F.2d 1319, 1325 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1031 (1993) (emphasis added). If the administrator does not retain the "power to apply" a discretionary element, it must apply the plan in a purely objective manner, and, more important, courts do not defer to its judgment. In Snow, this court applied the principle explained in Bogue, holding that a plan providing that "there will be no benefit unless Standard is presented with what it considers to be satisfactory written proof of the claimed loss" unambiguously vested discretion in the administrator. 87 F.3d at 330 (emphasis added).Snow, does not state that Standard retains the authority to determine what it considers to be "satisfactory written proof." At best, from Standard' s viewpoint the plan that covers Kearney is ambiguous as to whether Standard is granted the discretion to apply its subjective judgment or whether the question of what proof is satisfactory must be determined objectively under applicable legal and medical principles. The distinction is hardly trivial. If, as in Snow, Standard retains the authority to deny benefits when it believes in good faith that insufficient proof is offered, it also retains the discretion to give substance to its own standard. See 87 F.3d at 330; see also Donato v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 375, 379-80 (7th Cir. 1994) (plan used phrase "all proof must be satisfactory to us" ); Miller v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 925 F.2d 979, 983 (6th Cir. 1991) (plan used phrase "on the basis of medical evidence satisfactory to the Company" ). If the standard of proof is an objective one, however, Standard may deny benefits only to the extent that courts independently would conclude that the evidence fails to constitute satisfactory written proof. Thus, the different standards of review.

 The plan' s uncertainty on this point is fatal to Standard' s assertion of discretionary authority and requires us to adopt a purely objective approach to claimants' eligibility for benefits. This court explained in Bogue that "[l]anguage that establishes only an entity' s right to administer or manage a plan does not confer discretion." 976 F.2d at 1325; see also Bruch, 489 U.S. at 111. More important, we added:

We do not want to encourage an employer to insulate himself from effective appellate review through the abuse of vague phrases that fail to make clear to the employees that the employer will have the final determination of benefit decisions. Employees who lose promised benefits should not lose the additional benefit of judicial review because their employer reserved discretionary power to itself without making that reservation clear.

  The plan in Snow allowed Standard to deny benefits when not faced "with what it considers to be satisfactory written proof" ; the plan in this case, however, speaks only in general terms of the claimant' s obligation to submit "satisfactory written proof." The district court was, therefore, right to conclude that the plan fails "unambiguously" to provide Standard with the discretion to make eligibility determinations. the Sixth Circuit, at least initially, reached the same conclusion we do. It explained:

Simply because [the administrator] has the ability to require written proof before continuing disability benefits does not mean that [the administrator] has the discretionary authority to decide whether that proof is sufficient within the meaning of the Plan. Second, simply because [the administrator] may require ' satisfactory proof' does not give the insurance company discretionary authority. . . . The quoted plan provision does not specify to whom the proof should be satisfactory. [The plaintiff] probably is correct in arguing that this language creates an objective standard -- proof "satisfactory" to a reasonable person. But all we need decide at this point is that the language does not clearly give [the administrator] discretion, which is what the language of an ERISA plan must do under Bruch to trigger abuse of discretion review.

Perez v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 96 F.3d 813, 826 (6th Cir. 1996);Id.

  In Mongeluzo, we joined a number of other circuits in following the Fourth Circuit' s approach to this issue, holding that the district court was required to admit evidence beyond what was presented to the administrator "when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review of the benefit decision." Id. at 944 (quoting Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co., 987 F.2d 1017, 1025, (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc)).Id. Some of the circumstances that courts should consider in determining whether to allow additional evidence are set forth in Quesinberry. They include:

claims that require consideration of complex medical questions or issues regarding the credibility of medical experts; the availability of very limited administrative review processes with little or no evidentiary record; the necessity of evidence regarding interpretation of the terms of the plan rather than specific historical facts; instances where the payor and the administrator are the same entity and the court is concerned about impartiality; . . . and circumstances in which there is additional evidence that the claimant could not have presented in the administrative process.

  First, it is somewhat difficult to understand how the district court could conclude that Kearney was not disabled as a matter of law when every one of the treating and examining physicians, save Dr. Smith, either concluded that he was disabled or recommended further testing on the basis that he probably was disabled. Cf. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 n.4 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that nonexamining physician' s opinion should be given less weight than examining physician). Dr. Weinreb, for example, reported as late as October, 1994 (four months after Dr. Smith' s exam) that Kearney "could do legal work outside of trial work, wherein he can work within his disability described above, both physically and emotionally." This statement strongly suggested that "trial work" was still out of the question. Dr. Bittle also reported that Kearney' s cognitive impairments probably precluded trial work and that further tests could confirm that prognosis. And all the while, Kearney' s treating physicians, Dr. Morrison and Dr. Lehman, flatly diagnosed Kearney as disabled. Furthermore, it seems quite debateable that Kearney' s ability to play some doubles tennis and his occasional practice of driving a race car -- both of which were heavily relied on by Standard and the district court in denying Kearney' s claim -- is in any way inconsistent with an inability to perform all of the material duties of a trial attorney without seriously jeopardizing one' s health.  Second, an issue of material fact remains regarding the "material" duties of trial attorneys. A material duty is any duty that a person must perform in order to execute the functions of an occupation. See Rowan v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 119 F.3d 433, 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1997). Kearney submitted evidence from a Department of Labor handbook stating that trial attorneys "need an exceptional ability to speak quickly and speak with ease and authority and must be thoroughly familiar with courtroom rules and strategy . . . . [ ] Lawyers often work long hours, and about half regularly work 50 hours or more per week. They are under particularly heavy pressure, for example, when a case is being tried." Standard, on the other hand, claimed that the "occupation of a trial attorney is classified as sedentary . . . . Much of the work involves conducting research and does not require being in court or on a very tight time schedule." It is unclear whether the district court agreed with this seemingly odd conclusion of Standard' s regarding the life of a trial lawyer or whether it substituted a related definition of its own. Regardless of whether a finding along the lines suggested by Standard could ever stand up to scrutiny, it was erroneous for the court to reject the evidence offered by Kearney with the only conflicting evidence in the record being Standard' s. If the court had accepted as true Kearney' s evidence that performing the job of a trial attorney involves long hours, hard work and considerable stress, it probably would have had to find that Kearney was legally disabled in light of Dr. Weinreb' s explicit admonitions to avoid such working conditions. See McClure, 84 F.3d at 1134 (holding that pertinent inquiry is whether plaintiff is prevented from enduring working condition necessary to perform even a single material duty of job). For present purposes, however, we need only conclude that a genuine issue of material fact remains to be resolved.

 Shortly after the district court' s order of summary judgment in favor of Standard, Kearney moved under Rule 59(e) to vacate the judgment, pointing out the district court' s errors and arguing that an intervening Ninth Circuit case, McClure, demonstrated that the district court' s order of summary judgment was wrong. The district court denied the motion, and at Standard' s request, ordered Kearney to pay attorneys' fees to compensate it for its legal fees in litigating what the district court called a "groundless" motion. Kearney appeals the fee award.Hummel factors very frequently suggest that attorney' s fees should not be charged against ERISA plaintiffs" ).

 The fifth factor alone proves dispositive here. Kearney' s motion pointed the district court to errors it had made regarding the merits of his case, which are highlighted by McClure' s emphasis that an ERISA-disability plaintiff need demonstrate only that he is unable to perform a single material duty of his specialty. The district court, therefore, was incorrect in concluding that his motion was "groundless." Indeed, because Kearney was correct in his assignment of error, he more than adequately raised a "colorable claim of clear error," Thomassen v. United States, 835 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1987), making an award of fees and costs inappropriate in any context, let alone under ERISA. See id.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: FOOTNOTE(S):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

FN1. See infra Part I.

FN2. Because we conclude, infra at Part III, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on the policy' s first definition of disabled, we need not consider whether its dubious interpretation of the second definition is correct.

FN3. Despite the fact that Standard issued the plans in both Snow and the present case, it is apparent that at least some of the language of the two plans differs. The plan in this case applies only to attorneys, while the plaintiff in Snow was not an attorney. Furthermore, given that Standard administered both plans, we assume that if the relevant language had been the same, Standard would have pointed out that fact in its seven-page discussion of Snow in its brief, for that would have made that decision practically res judicata. Instead, Standard claims merely that the plans are "nearly identical." Because a plan must "unambiguously" vest discretion in its administrator, however, a difference that may be small in Standard' s view may well prove determinative here. We note also, for what it may be worth, that we have reservations as to the effect we would give any representation by Standard that the language of the two plans was identical. Snow does not quote the plan' s language, and we doubt that we are free to look behind the text of the opinion in an effort to ascertain facts that the court failed to set forth or determine. What matters here is that we described the policy in Snow as requiring proof that Standard considers to be satisfactory.

FN4. This conclusion is bolstered by this court' s rule that ambiguities in ERISA insurance contracts are to be construed against the drafter. McClure v. Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1996), citing Kunin v. Benefit Trust Life Ins. Co., 910 F.2d 534, 539-540 (9th Cir.) (as amended), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1013 (1990).

FN5. The plan stated that: "Subsequent written proof of the continuance of such disability must be furnished to [the company] at such intervals as [the company] may reasonably require. . . . [The company] shall have the right to require as part of the proof of claim satisfactory evidence." 96 F.3d at 825.

FN6. The Sixth Circuit has since vacated this decision and reheard the case en banc to reconsider this issue and others. 106 F.3d 146 (6th Cir. 1997). The en banc court has not yet announced its decision. However, our decision is in no way dependent on the en banc court' s adopting the panel decision with which we agree.

FN7. See also Casey v. Uddeholm Corp., 32 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 & n.4 (7th Cir. 1994); Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare and Pension Trust Funds, 944 F.2d 1176, 1184-85 (3rd Cir. 1991); Moon v. American Home Assurance Co., 888 F.2d 86, 89 (11th Cir. 1989).

FN8. Whether it is wise for a person with a heart condition, or indeed anyone, to drive race cars occasionally, or frequently, is a question beyond the scope of this opinion. It is sufficient to note for our purposes that if people who are sick or disabled engage in unhealthy or unwise activities it does not render them physically unimpaired. People who continue to smoke after contracting lung cancer may not for that reason be classified as cancer-free.

FN9. Kearney also correctly reminded the court that one of his material duties is his ethical obligation to his clients to withdraw from representation when he cannot devote sufficient time, energy or quality service to their cause. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-110, 3-700; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6190. The court made no findings as to whether Kearney could properly carry on his specialty in light of this obligation.

FN10. Kearney also seeks attorneys' fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) (1994), which permits plan participants who prevail in ERISA actions to recover fees. Since we remand this case for further proceedings, neither party has "prevailed" in this matter. We, therefore, dismiss this claim as not yet ripe. See McClure, 84 F.3d at 1136.