processing of claims. Cf., e.g., De Buono v. NYSA-ILA Medical and Clinical Services Fund, 520 U.S. 806, -, 117 S.Ct. 1747, 1751-1754, 138 L.Ed.2d 21 (1997) (limiting scope of § 514(a) in context of taxation of medical facilities but leaving intact prior preemption cases). The expansiveness of ERISA’s preemption provision has prompted one court to liken it to a “ ‘Pac Man’ that runs around the legal landscape ... eating up other claims.” Andrews-Clarke v. Travelers Ins. Co., 984 F.Supp. 49, 57 n. 31 (D.Mass.1997) (Young, J.) (citation omittedXgranting motion to dismiss state wrongful death, contract and medical malpractice claims based on ERISA preemption where plaintiff claimed her husband died because a utilization rev il, 223 A.D.2d 245, 646 N.Y.S.2d 799, 802 (N.Y.App.Div.1996) (<HOLDING>). The Court is not swayed by the Dancas’
holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted 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 a malpractice claim against a treating medical provider at an hmo was not preempted holding that no expert reports specifically addressing conduct of professional corporation and professional association were required when plaintiffs alleged only vicarious liability based on medical negligence of entities physicians explaining that the entities conduct is not measured by a medical standard of care but rather their liability was solely vicarious holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa