SSM violated duties it owed to him under the Hospital Services Agreement — to which he is a party — and that he is a third-party beneficiary to the Provider Agreement. See Denver Health & Hosp. Auth. v. Beverage Distrib. Co., 546 Fed.Appx. 742, 747 (10th Cir.2013) (unpublished) (“[E]xtrinsic documents relevant to the plan ... do not themselves constitute the terms of the plan for purposes of § 502(a)(1)(B).” (quotation omitted)). Sal-zer also alleges in these claims that by improperly billing him in violation of the above-cited agreements, SSM violated state statutory duties and common law tort duties. Some courts have held that patients cannot make out claims under provider agreements. Blue Cross of Cal. v. Anesthesia Care Assoc. Med. Grp., Inc., 187 F.3d 1045, 1051 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Mem’l Hermann Hosp. Sys. v. Aetna Health
holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim brought by an independent third party health care provider was not preempted by erisa holding that health care providers claims against insurer for violation of a provider agreement were not covered by  502a1b in part because direct contract claims could not have been asserted by patients holding that a thirdparty providers claim against insurer for promissory estoppel was not preempted by erisa because the thirdparty provider was not bound by the terms of the erisa plan recognizing that a patients choice of a health care facility does not render the facility a beneficiary under 502a1b