another variation of Defendants’ argument that the alleged goals of the Retirement Plan require an offset to the minimum benefit formulas. According to Defendants, the benefit payable under the Retirement Plan must be offset by the value of a participant’s Secured Benefit Account whenever the participant elects not to transfer the balance of his Account into the Retirement Plan. The Plan, however, states otherwise. In the case of a participant who elects not to transfer his Secured Benefit Account balance to the Retirement Plan, § 4.2(e)(i) provides for a Secured Benefit Account offset only to the Normal Retirement Benefit set forth in § 4.2(b). The text of the Plan controls here, not the unexpressed intent of the drafters. See Blau v. Del Monte, 748 F.2d 1348, 1355 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Defendants argue that the plan
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 plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan holding that court will not defer to unexpressed intent or purposes behind an erisa plan holding that words cannot be written into an erisa plan imparting an intent wholly unexpressed when it was executed