Fact situation 2 [from Walsh (2013, p. 458)]:

A 44-year-old project manager and plumber was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. She applied for and received benefits under her employer's disability plan.While she was receiving benefits, she was encouraged also to apply for Social Security disability. Receipt of the latter would reduce but not end payments under the employer's plan. She applied for the Social Security disability benefits, was determined to be disabled by the Social Security Administration, and began to receive Social Security disability. At about the same time, the administrator of the employer's disability plan undertook an examination of her case.Several physicians were hired to conduct peer reviews of her medical files.One of the reviewing physicians concluded from examining her file that the woman "was not credible" and that she could, in fact, work. Her benefits under the employer's disability plan were discontinued. No examinations of the woman were conducted, and the ruling that she was eligible for Social Security disability was not considered.Was ERISA violated by the termination of this woman's disability.Discuss the facts that you think are most important in answering this question and explain why those facts are important. Then, apply legal concepts to the facts of the case to explain what the court should decide .If you believe that ERISA was violated, who is guilty of the violation.