to those benefits under the Plan. Thus, her claim for damages is grounded in the existence of the ERISA-regulated plan providing for severance benefits in certain circumstances. This is true regardless of whether she seeks her damages in the form of a single lump-sum payment or in the form of benefits paid out over a period of time. See also Church v. Wachovia Securities, Inc., 05cv422-H, 2005 WL 3019239, at *1, 3 (W.D.N.C. Nov.10, 2005) (plaintiffs state law damages action against former employer was preempted by ERISA as plaintiff expressly sought “severance benefits under the Defendant’s policies — an unmistakable reference to payments available, if at all, only under the terms of the Plan— rather than general damages for breach of contract”); Radcliff, 377 F.Supp.2d at 564-65 (<HOLDING>); Strohmeyer v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 365
holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan holding that plaintiffs claims for breach of contract in connection with denial of his application for longterm disability benefits detrimental reliance and discrimination pursuant to west virginia workers compensation act were completely preempted by erisa as they were based on rights created by a federallyregulated contract ie defendants erisagoverned ltd plan and severance pay plan holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy holding hospitals statelaw claims for breach of fiduciary duty negligence equitable estoppel breach of contract and fraud were preempted by erisa where the hospital sought to recover benefits owed to a plan participant who had assigned her right to plan benefits to the hospital holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits