"received notice from the Division of Pension stating that benefits from his pension account were being terminated,” (App.49), and a remark that the NJTA "deprived [O’Connell] of his rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the State of New Jersey, and are liable to [O’Connell] pursuant to Article I, paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Constitution of the United States.” (App.51.) 3 . It appears that the mistake occurred because the preamble and other portions of O’Connell’s state court Complaint, which O’Connell filed while residing in Virginia, were copied and pasted into O’Connel merely support his NJLAD claim, and O’Connell does not seek to recover benefits under an ERISA-covered policy. See Mints v. Educ. Testing Serv., 99 F.3d 1253, 1261 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Thus, there is no basis for federal question
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 federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans holding that plaintiff could not present his erisa estoppel claim to the district court because he did not properly exhaust it before the administrative review board holding that plaintiff did not raise a federal question when he pled that he lost rights protected by erisa because he merely set forth the loss of his erisa protected rights as a consequence of etss actions which allegedly violated the njlad holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment