agent refused to authorize the inpatient rehabilitation program for alcoholism provided in the plan). Here, the gravamen of the Dancas’ claims against PHCS is the improper denial of Mrs. Danca’s request for pre-authorization for placement at McLean Hospital. Specifically, the Dancas allege that PHCS (a) failed to ensure that adequate medical personnel handled and evaluated her authorization request; (b) failed to adequately evaluate the requests of her physicians; (c) failed to adequately train the staff evaluating the requests; (d) negligently failed to follow the recommendation of her treating physicians as to the appropriate treating facility; and (e) negligently inflicted emotional distress (Count V. of Second Amended Complaint) (Docket No. 26). The viability of a claim b C.1996) (<HOLDING>); Tufino v. New York Hotel and Motel Trades
holding that a malpractice claim against a treating medical provider at an hmo was not preempted holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa holding that employees claims for medical malpractice negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against an hmo arising out of refusal to pay for surgery were integrally and inextricably related to their employee benefit plan and therefore preempted recognizing that even when a prisoner files suit under section 1983 alleging medical malpractice against prison medical officials medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal