plans and even if its effect is indirect.” Rosario-Cordero v. Crowley Towing & Transp. Co., 46 F.3d 120, 122-123 (1st Cir.1995) (citing D.C. v. Greater Wash. Bd. Of Trade, 506 U.S. 125, 129-30, 113 S.Ct. 580, 121 L.Ed.2d 513 (1992)). An emotional distress cause of action that hinges upon the same facts as an ERISA claim, like in Rios’s case, necessarily requires reference to and analysis of the ERISA plan. Otero v. Pharmacia Co., 466 F.3d 13, 20 (1st Cir.2006). The Supreme Court recognized as such and held that an ERISA plan beneficiary may not seek emotional distress damages purely because a plan administrator has wrongfully denied benefits to the beneficiary. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 481 U.S. at 47, 107 S.Ct. 1549; see also Alamo v. MCS Life Ins. Co., 283 F.Supp.2d 459, 467 (D.P.R.2003) (<HOLDING>). Allowing Rios to recover damages under an
holding that erisa preempts an article 1802 emotional distress claim that relates to an erisa plan holding that state law relates to an employee benefit plan and is therefore preempted by erisa if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans 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 erisa preempts state law claims of fraud and misrepresentation that are based upon the failure of a covered plan to pay benefits