With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was, in essence, simply applying its standard two-prong test for conflict preemption. See Hubbard, 42 F.3d at 945 (explaining that state-law causes of action are conflict preempted if (1) the claim addresses an area of exclusive federal concern and (2) the claim directly affects the relationship between the traditional ERISA entities). Under Perkins and the general test for conflict preemption, Plaintiffs negligence claim against Paychex and Walker is not subject to conflict preemption. First, unlike Plaintiffs breach-of-contract claim, this claim is not one that addresses an area of exclusive federal concern, such as the distribution of benefits under an ERISA plan. Compare Transitional Hospitals Corp. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Tex., Inc., 164 F.3d 952, 955 (5th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>), with Hermann Hospital v. MEBA Med. & Benefits

A: holding hospitals statelaw claims for breach of fiduciary duty negligence equitable estoppel breach of contract and fraud were preempted by erisa where the hospital sought to recover benefits owed to a plan participant who had assigned her right to plan benefits to the hospital
B: 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
C: holding that erisa did not preempt hospitals claims against erisa plan administrator for misrepresentation under texas insurance code because hospitals claims were not dependent on or derived from the beneficiarys right to recover benefits under the plan
D: holding plaintiffs statelaw claims alleging common law misrepresentation and statutory misrepresentation under the texas insurance code art 2121 not preempted because they were not dependent on  the right to recover benefits under the erisa plan
C.