Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): from New York’s surcharge program and was not preempted. The prevailing wage law merely “alters the incentives, but does not dictate the choices, facing ERISA plans,” Id. at 334, 117 S.Ct. 832, and thus is “no different from myriad state laws in areas traditionally subject to local regulation, which Congress could not possibly have intended to eliminate.” Travelers, 514 U.S. at 668, 115 S.Ct. 1671. More recently, in De 6th Cir.1995) (ERISA preempted claim for the refusal to authorize inpatient treatment for a mental health patient); Kuhl v. Lincoln National Health Plan of Kansas City, Inc., 999 F.2d 298 (8th Cir.1993) (ERISA preempts malpractice claim against an HMO for denying precertification for heart surgery); Spain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 11 F.3d 129 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Corcoran v. United Healthcare, Inc., 965 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans (B) holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute (C) holding that erisa preempts wrongful death and state common law actions when plaintiff asserts insurers delay in authorization of procedure caused the patients death (D) holding unconstitutional a state wrongful death statute which denied illegitimate children the right to recover for the wrongful death of their mother (E) recognizing cause of action for wrongful death
Output (English): holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans