to be brought against a beneficiary’s employer when the employer is the plan administrator and thus bears responsibility for, and has control over, the plan itself. See Garren, 114 F.3d at 187. The Seventh Circuit, however, has adopted the position that only the plan as an entity may be sued. Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 88 F.3d 1482, 1491 (7th Cir.1996) (stating that ERISA permits suits to recover benefits “only against the plan as an entity,” and thus suits against non-plan defendants such as medical personnel are not allowed unless liability against such person is established under another part of the statute), quoting Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323, 1324 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Riordan v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 128 F.3d 549, 551 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Although the Seventh Circuit has yet to
holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator holding that an employees claim against plan administrator for denied benefits is preempted holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage holding that erisa permits suits to recover benefits only against the plan as an entity and thus the beneficiary had erred by suing her exhusbands employer and plan administrator when proper party would have been the benefits plan itself