an employee’s eligibility for, receipt of, plan benefits. See Stiltner v. Beretta, U.S.A. Corp., 74 F.3d 1473, 1480-81 (4th Cir.1996)(en banc.) (intentional infliction of emotion distress claim based upon employer’s alleged termination of employee to avoid paying her benefits was preempted); (4) state laws that conflict with the provisions of ERISA or operate to frustrate its objectives. See Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 117 S.Ct. 1754, 138 L.Ed.2d 45 (1997) (preempting application of Louisiana’s community property law which would have allowed first wife to make a testamentary transfer of her interest in participant’s retirement benefits and survivor’s annuity); and (5) state laws that require employers to provide certain benefits. See Metropolitan Life 471 U.S. 724, 105 S.Ct. 2380 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs claims in the instant case fall
holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans holding that statute related to erisa plans pursuant to  514a because it prohibited plans from being structured in a manner requiring reimbursement in the event of a recovery from a third party recognizing that it was beyond dispute that a state statute that required all insured benefit plans to submit to an extra layer of review for certain benefit denials had a substantial effect on erisa plans holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language