a person is a fiduciary “with respect to a plan to the extent (i) he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets, (ii) he renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of such plan, or has any authority or responsibility to do so, or (iii) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(a). Congress intended that the term “fiduciary” be “broadly construed.” Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir.2009) (citation omitted). This statutory definition is functional, not status-based. Id. (<HOLDING>). Prong one of subsection (i) provides that a
holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary 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 holding that plan did not comply holding that ones status as an officer did not make him a erisa fiduciary because he did not manage 401k plan assets 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