"[T]he Seventh Circuit declared that '[P]laintiffs alleging claims under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) for plan benefits need not necessarily identify the specific language of every plan provision at issue to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).' Dr. Griffin did not need to point to a particular plan provision specifying entitlement to 'greater payment,' as such a requirement would 'turn notice pleading on its head[,]' especially when the plan failed to provide Dr. Griffin with 'information necessary to allege with more detail where the plan's calculation of the usual and customary rate went astray.' " [Griffin v. TEAMCARE, No. 18-2374 (7th Cir. Nov. 26, 2018, amended Nov. 30, 2018)]