services.”). QIC confesses a lack of independence from the Plan when it states in its complaints that it “provided prescription drugs ... to [Carstens and Williby] pursuant to the terms of the Plan and the Texas AWP statute. As such, [QIC] is entitled to payment from [Humana] pursuant to the Plan....” In essence, QIC’s AWP claims are for benefits under the Plan and, thus, are completely preempted and subject to removal, regardless of any difference in their elements, see Davila, 542 U.S. at 216, 124 S.Ct. 2488, or how artful QIC is in its pleadings, see McGowin v. ManPower Int’l, Inc., 363 F.3d 556, 559 (5th Cir.2004). See also Quality Infusion, 2006 WL 3813774, at *7 (applying similar analysis to AWP); Cleghorn, v. Blue Shield of Cal., 408 F.3d 1222, 1224-26 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). As far as standing is concerned, QIC argues
holding negligent misrepresentation claim was not preempted because it neither sought benefits under plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits holding that erisa preempted a state law claim because the courts inquiry centered on the employee benefits plan at issue holding that an employees claim against plan administrator for denied benefits is preempted holding that a claim based on an insurers failure to provide emergency benefits under state law is completely preempted because the factual basis of the complaint  was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits