With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 752 (1983) (Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (“AEA”)). The Supreme Court has held that, in cases like this one, “where the federal law is said to bar state action in fields of traditional state regulation,” absent a clear expression of congressional intent to the contrary, “Congress does not intend to supplant state law.” Travelers, 514 U.S. at 654-55, 115 S.Ct. 1671, 1676, 131 L.Ed.2d 695; De Buono, 520 U.S. at 814, 117 S.Ct. at 1752. See also Mortier, 501 U.S. at 605, 111 S.Ct. at 2482; Automated Medical, 471 U.S. at 715, 105 S.Ct. at 2376; Pacific Gas, 461 U.S. at 205, 103 S.Ct. at 1723. In those cases, the Supreme Court concluded that state regulations in areas traditionally regulated by States had not been pre-empted by federal law. See De Buono, 520 U.S. at 814-16, 117 S.Ct. at 1752 (<HOLDING>); Mortier, 501 U.S. at 605, 111 S.Ct. at 2482

A: holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim brought by an independent third party health care provider was not preempted by erisa
B: holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans
C: holding florida exemption statute for employee benefit plans was not preempted by erisa due to savings clause
D: holding that state regulation that imposed a tax on gross receipts for patient services at hospitals residential health care facilities and diagnostic and treatment centers some of which were run by erisa plans was not preempted by erisa
D.