Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ordered by the commissioner.” Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 413.014(d); see also Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 413.014(c); 28 Tex. Admin. Code § 134.600 (requiring preauthorization for spinal surgeries). 4 . On the record before us, it appears that Caldera has suffered no out-.of-pocket loss for the costs at issue. And as far as we can tell, Medicare has taken np,steps to recover these funds from ICSP or Caldera. 5 . The parties agreed to sever Caldera's extent-of-injury appeal and his MSP claim. The MSP claim is pending before the 105th Judi- . cial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, but is abated pending the outcome of this declaratory judgment. 6 . Courts across the country have reached this conclusion. See, e.g., Varacalli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 763 F.Supp. 205, 207 (E.D.Mich.1990) (<HOLDING>); Abrams v. Heckler, 582 F.Supp. 1155, 1165 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident (B) holding that under msp any payment that medicare does make is secondary and is subject to reimbursement from sources of primary coverage under the statute regardless of whether those sources can be expected to pay promptly (C) holding that a claim based on an insurers failure to provide emergency benefits under state law is completely preempted because the factual basis of the complaint  was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits (D) holding the state law claims were not preempted (E) holding that the msp preempted a state law that required insurers to offer coordination of benefits at reduced premiums when the insured had other health and accident coverage making medicare the primary payer in direct conflict with the msp
Output (English): holding that a claim based on an insurers failure to provide emergency benefits under state law is completely preempted because the factual basis of the complaint  was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits