With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Center. v. National League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 974-75 (9th Cir.2007) (finding that Cedars-Sinai’s claims were not preempted because they were “predicated not on the [service benefits] plan” but on a separate contract between the carrier and the medical services provider). Plaintiffs claim that Plaintiff never received compensation for the emergency care of B.G. directly relates to the processing and administration of the enrollee’s covered claims which is governed by the Service Benefits Plan and the Contract between Blue Shield and OPM. Any obligation that Blue Shield could have to pay Plaintiff stems directly from the B.G.’s enrollment in the Service Benefit Plan and directly relates to the payment of B.G.’s benefits under the plan. See Hayes, 819 F.2d at 926 (<HOLDING>); Botsford, 314 F.3d at 396 (“Because the

A: holding that fehba does not completely preempt state law
B: holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba
C: holding that tort claims arising out of the manner in which a benefit claim is handled are preempted by fehba
D: holding state law claims arising out of unions refusal to readmit union members preempted by  301
C.