ERISA provisions therefore seek to prevent alienation of benefits, either voluntarily or involuntarily. As such, ERISA falls within the plain meaning of the term “applicable nonbankruptcy law.” Finally, the holding in Daniel raises the specter of deeply disrupting the protections granted by Congress under ERISA, both for those who file for bankruptcy and for those who do not. Plans must comply with the anti-alienation provisions in 26 U.S.C. § 401(a)(13) and 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). Failure to exclude ERISA-qualified plans from the bankruptcy estate would violate these provisions and could therefore subject the plans to ERISA disqualification and loss of tax exempt status. See McLean v. Cent. States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 762 F.2d 1204, 1206 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Moore, 907 F.2d at 1476. It is
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 recognizing irs position that turnover of erisa funds to chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee would cause plan to lose its erisa qualification and tax exempt status holding that erisa preempts an article 1802 emotional distress claim that relates to an erisa plan holding that funds held by chapter 13 trustee become property of the chapter 7 estate upon conversion not subject to exemption recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa