and Hermann I. The court focused on footnote 20 in Memorial and concluded that Memorial actually clar ified Hermann I. The Cypress Fairbanks court read this footnote as articulating two distinctions between the competing precedents: (1) the underlying problem in Hermann I was the insurer’s delay in processing claims allegedly owed to the hospital as an assignor, and (2) the hospital’s claims in Heimann I derived from the rights of the plan beneficiary to recover under the plan. According to the Cypress Fairbanks court, this latter distinction meant that the hospital “was not an independent, third-party provider of medical services, but rather more akin to a first-party beneficiary whose causes of action are normally preempted by ERISA.” Id. at 284. But see Hermann II, 959 F.2d at 576 (<HOLDING>). The Cypress Fairbanks court held that
holding that plaintiff could not prevail as a thirdparty beneficiary where contract was not valid holding that a company providing administrative purchasing and financial services to a hospital was not a hospital and thus could not be held directly liable under emtala holding employer thirdparty beneficiary could compel arbitration holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan holding that a hospital could not be an erisa beneficiary