benefits may not be implied into ERISA itself, § 502(a)(1)(B). See Russell, 473 U.S. at 146-47, 105 S.Ct. 3085 (“The six carefully integrated civil enforcement provisions found in § 502(a) of the statute as finally enacted ... provide strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly. The assumption of inadvertent omission is rendered especially suspect upon close consideration of ERISA’s interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme, which is in turn part of a comprehensive and reticulated statute____Where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it.”) (emphasis in original) (internal quotations omitted); Dobson 389 F.3d at 398 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). The issue, thus, is
recognizing that russell rejected a remedy that was neither expressed nor implied in the plan but that plaintiff claimed was implicit in the erisa statute  holding that congress had clearly expressed through the structure and legislative history of  erisa an intention that the federal remedy  displace state causes of action holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant 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 holding that plaintiff in erisa action was entitled to restitution under similar circumstances