of ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions, namely the denial of disability benefits. Moreover, it has been repeatedly held that a cause of action “relates to” an ERISA plan when the court must evaluate and interpret the terms of the ERISA regulated plan in order to determine liability under the state law. Hampers v. W.R. Grace & Co., 202 F.3d at 52. That is the case here. Plaintiff asserts causes of action under Puerto Rico tort and breach of contract law for the alleged wrongful denial of health care and disability benefits which in turn requires that the court evaluate and interpret co-defendants’ ERISA regulated Plan. Such claims fall squarely within ERISA’s civil enforcement provision. Therefore, such causes of action are pre-empted by ERISA and should be dismissed. Id. at 54 (<HOLDING>); Turner v. Fallon Cmty. Health Plan, 127 F.3d
holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted 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 that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it arose out of the same conduct as a preempted contract claim holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it was based on the same conduct as a preempted claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing 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