process of rendering medical treatment.”, D.A.B., 570 N.W.2d at 172. Mrs. Shea’s claim stems from “the process of rendering medical treatment,” id., and therefore, it would not affect the structure, administration or economics of the ERISA plan. The district court concluded that the negligent misrepresentation claim.of count III was preempted • for the same reason that Mrs. Shea’s claim against Medica, a plan fiduciary, was preempted in Shea I. We respectfully disagree with this analysis. Our opinion in Shea I mandates that ERISA fiduciaries must disclose financial incentives that discourage a treating physician from providing referrals. 107 F.3d at 628-29. The physicians being sued in this case, however, are not ERISA fiduciaries. Cf. Hull v. Fallon, 188 F.3d 939, 943(8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1242, 146
recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician holding state law malpractice claim against a physician was preempted where the physician acting as the plan administrator denied a thallium stress test as a plan benefit holding that an employees claim against plan administrator for denied benefits is preempted holding that one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa