by the benefits allegedly due under the plan, the hospital’s claim related to an ERISA plan. The court reasoned that the potential benefits merely set a benchmark and removed much speculation from the damage calculation. The court also concluded that the quantum of damages was unrelated to the right to benefits under the plan, and that a one-time recovery against the plan would have little effect on the continuing administration of the plan. See id. The Memorial court concluded that preemption of the hospital’s negligent misrepresentation claim would not further Congress’s goal of protecting the interests of participants and beneficiaries. See id. ERISA itself does not provide a remedy to third-party providers for misrepresentation. See id. at 248. But see Hermann I, 845 F.2d at 1290 (<HOLDING>). While the court acknowledged three previous
holding that erisa permits suits to recover benefits only against the plan as an entity and thus the beneficiary had erred by suing her exhusbands employer and plan administrator when proper party would have been the benefits plan itself holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that a plaintiff who had asserted no claim against a thirdparty defendant lacked standing to complain of the courts action with regard to the thirdparty defendant holding that a thirdparty providers claim against insurer for promissory estoppel was not preempted by erisa because the thirdparty provider was not bound by the terms of the erisa plan holding that thirdparty care providers have derivative standing as assignees to force payment of benefits from a plan