Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): determination is whether the state law relied upon in the well-pleaded complaint “relates to” an employee benefit plan. Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U.S. at 138, 111 S.Ct. at 482; Cefalu v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 871 F.2d 1290, 1292 (5th Cir.1989). A state law “relates to” an employee benefit plan “if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.” Shaw, 463 U.S. at 96-97, 103 S.Ct. at 2899-2900. Therefore, a state law may “relate to” an employee benefit plan even if the law is not designed to affect the plan or does so even in an indirect manner. Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 47,107 S.Ct. at 1552-53. Nevertheless, the reach of ERISA preemption is not limitless. See, e.g., Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 841, 108 S.Ct. 2182, 2191-92, 100 L.Ed.2d 836 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that erisa did not preempt a states general garnishment statute even when applied to collect judgments against plan participants (B) holding that erisa does not preempt section 22213b7 (C) holding that erisa did not preempt hospitals claims against erisa plan administrator for misrepresentation under texas insurance code because hospitals claims were not dependent on or derived from the beneficiarys right to recover benefits under the plan (D) holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims (E) holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan
Output (English): holding that erisa does not preempt section 22213b7