Because the Plan determines disability (in part) by examining whether the claimant could have been gainfully employed elsewhere, in order to determine whether Plaintiff was disabled while employed at Lockwood, the extent of his functional abilities could have, and arguably should have, been examined. See Schofield v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 297 F. App'x. 697, 699 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2008) (noting that, where a plan required a claimant to be unable to earn more than 80% of predisability earnings in order to be considered disabled, it was improper for MetLife not to apply the 80% test based on the reasoning "that because . . . [plaintiff] could do her prior job, she could earn 100% of her prior salary"); Whatley v. CNA Ins. Companies, 189 F.3d 1310, 1313-1314 (11th Cir. 1999) (reversing district court's conclusion affirming denial of plaintiff's benefits on the grounds that, although plaintiff may have been able to show up to work and collect a paycheck, he may not have been able to "perform the substantial and material duties" of his job, as required under the benefits plan.) (citing Kirwan v. Marriott Corp., 10 F.3d 784, 786 [11th Cir. 1994]).