“rel ear-cut method for determining whether a state law which merely has some unintended effects on ERISA-gov-erned plans will be preempted. However, in implicit recognition of the fact that the Supreme Court’s guidance often can only obscure the issue, the Eighth Circuit has held that a variety of tests can provide assistance when determining the effect of a state law on an ERISA plan. Johnston v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 241 F.3d 623, 630 (8th Cir.2001). One such test was set forth by the Eighth Circuit in Prudential Insurance Co. 1072, 1073 (8th Cir.2000) (“ERISA remedies preempt ‘state common law tort and contract actions asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits’ under an ERISA plan.”) (quoting Pilot Life Ins. Co.); Hull v. Fallon, 188 F.3d 939, 943 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); accord McDonald v. Household Int’l, Inc., 425
holding that where the basis of state claims for medical malpractice relates to the administration of plan benefits those claims fall squarely within the scope of erisa holding that declaratory judgments fall outside the scope of the court of claims jurisdiction holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits holding that general medical malpractice claims do fall with waiver provision of ttca 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