With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". America, 154 F.3d at 822. There, the Eighth Circuit opined that a claim relates to an ERISA plan when it “premises a cause of action on the existence of an ERISA plan....” Id. Applying the Eighth Circuit’s test to the case at bar, it is clear the Van Nattas’ state law claims are preempted in their entirety. Reducing the Van Nattas’ complaint to its core reveals the fact that all of their state law claims are premised upon alleged improper processing of a claim for benefits under an employee-benefit plan. As the Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit have previously reiterated, such claims undoubtedly meet the criteria for preemption under § 514(a), even if the state statutes at issue do not expressly make reference to ERISA plans. See Pilot Life Ins. Co., 48 293 F.3d 442, 446 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Thompson v. Gencare Health Sys., Inc., 202

A: 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
B: holding the state law claims were not preempted
C: holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits
D: holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan
D.