Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): plan administrator seeking recovery of plan benefits). Similarly, those cases in which the state law claim involves “some aspect of the distribution, processing or entitlement of benefits or administration of claims or funds under a[n] [ERISA] plan[,]” typically are determined to be preempted by federal law. Hollingsworth Paving, 929 F.Supp. at 1101; see also Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Pressley, 82 F.3d 126, 129 (6th Cir.1996), cert. denied sub nom. Pressley v. Pressley, 520 U.S. 1263, 117 S.Ct. 2431, 138 L.Ed.2d 193 (1997) (commenting that state laws relating to designation of beneficiaries are preempted when an ERISA plan is involved); Tri-State Mach., Inc. v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 33 F.3d 309 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1183, 115 S.Ct. 1175, 130 L.Ed.2d 1128 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In addition to the nature of the claim, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state law causes of action arising from improper processing of a claim for benefits are preempted (B) holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law (C) holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy (D) holding that erisa preempted state law claim brought by employer against insurance company for wrongful claims processing (E) holding the state law claims were not preempted
Output (English): holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy