medicine] undeniably eliminates whatever may have remained of a plan sponsor’s option to minimize scrutiny of benefit denials, this effect of eliminating an insurer’s autonomy to guarantee terms congenial to its own interests is the stuff of garden variety insurance regulation through the imposition of standard policy terms.... It is therefore hard to imagine a reservation of state power to regulate insurance that would not be meant to cover restrictions of the insurer’s advantage in this kind of way.... To the extent that benefit litigation in some federal courts may have to account for the effects of [the statute], it would be an exaggeration to hold that the objectives of [ERISA’s Savings Clause] are undermined. 536 U.S. at 387, e Insurers v. Ross, 558 F.3d 600, 605 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Further, insurance regulation is not
recognizing privilege under federal rules holding that pro se litigants must follow the kentucky rules of civil procedure holding that certain rules meet the first prong of the kentucky association test because those rules regulate insurers with respect to their insurance practices holding that a criminal defendants counsel is charged with knowledge of the local criminal rules in their entirety including those parts of the local civil rules incorporated by reference holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery