chemotherapy/bone marrow .transplant program. The Court, holding that the plaintiffs claims were preempted by § 514(a), noted: “It would be difficult to think of a state law that relates more closely to an employee benefit plan than one that affords remedies for the breach of obligations under that plan.” Id. at 199. The Dancas’ claims appear, in all important respects, indistinguishable from those preempted in Turner and Andrews-Clarke. The Dancas, despite their characterizations to the contrary, are essentially seeking a remedy for a breach of an obligation under the plan to provide certain benefits, namely, hospitalization at McLean. Section 514(a) precludes all “state claims to enforce rights under an ERISA plan or obtain damages for the wrongful wi 321, 1331-1335 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). This is not similar to those cases where a
holding that when the forest service made transitionperiod decisions under the 1982 rules rather than the best available science standard those decisions were arbitrary and capricious holding that the medical review panel is authorized to review the medical records and other submitted material pertaining to each defendants treatment of a patient and that while a medical malpractice plaintiff must as a prerequisite to filing suit present the  proposed complaint for review and expert opinion by a medical review panel there is no requirement for such plaintiff to fully explicate and provide the particulars or legal contentions regarding the claim holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions holding that utilization review agents made medical decisions but negligence claim is nonetheless preempted by  514a because the medical decisions were made in the context of benefit determinations holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions