preemption” applies if Congress has intended the federal law to “exclusively govern” the area implicated by the state law. Id. Within the last month, the Supreme Court addressed the requirements for complete preemption under ERISA, stating that “any state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy [ERISA § 502(a), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132(a) ] conflicts with the clear congressional intent to make the ERISA remedy exclusive and is therefore [completely] preempted.” Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 2495, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004). The Court also restated the essential test for determining whether a plaintiffs state-law Pritt v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of West Virginia, Inc., 699 F.Supp. 81, 84 (W.D.WVa.1998)(<HOLDING>). However, as the Defendant correctly notes,
holding that the medicaid statute did not create an enforceable cause of action against a private health care facility holding that nursing home patients did not have a property interest in receiving care at a particular facility recognizing that a patients choice of a health care facility does not render the facility a beneficiary under 502a1b recognizing right to privacy in receipt of health care services to the extent consistent with providing adequate medical care and the safety and good order of the facility recognizing whiting as a maximum security mental health facility