With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". David Egelhoff, the plan participant, designated his then-wife Donna, as his beneficiary. Shortly after they were divorced, David died in a car accident. David’s children from a prior marriage argued that, by virtue of the divorce, Donna was disqualified by Washington law from receiving the proceeds. The Court ruled that ERISA preempted the Washington statute and that state law cannot “bind[ ] ERISA plan administrators to a particular choice of rules for determining beneficiary status.” Id. at 147, 121 S.Ct. 1322. The Court emphasized that national uniformity was ensured by “ERISA’s commands that a plan shall ‘specify the basis on which payments are made to and from the plan,’ § 1102(b)(4).” Id.; see also Branco v. UFCW-N. Cal. Employers Joint Pension Plan, 279 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Nothing that we have said here is contrary to

A: holding that erisa preempted a state court order awarding spousal interest in an employees pension proceeds
B: holding that an employees protected interest in a pension vested before he or she became eligible to collect the pension
C: holding a state workers compensation regime preempted by erisa to the extent state law applied to pension plans governed by federal law
D: holding that an employees claim for wrongful discharge based on the employers desire to avoid contributing to or paying benefits under the employees pension fund is preempted by erisa even though the claims are asserted under tort theories not erisa and seek damages only in the form of lost wages mental anguish and punitive damages not benefits under the plan
A.