Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
coverage. Id. at 238 (explaining that the plan participant was not covered at the time of the alleged misrepresentation). In holding that the plaintiffs claim was not preempted by ERISA, the court stated the “provider’s state law action ... would not arise due to the patient’s coverage under an ERISA plan, but precisely because there is no ERISA plan coverage.” Id. at 246. Further, the fact that the plaintiffs damages Am., 101 F.3d 600, 606 (8th Cir.1996) (declining to extend preemption to state law claims of a third party provider because it “would not further the Congressional goal of protecting the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans”); Hospice of Metro Denver, Inc. v. Group Health Ins. of Okla., Inc., 944 F.2d 752, 756 (10th Cir.1991). As there is no binding Fourth Circuit
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan
B. holding that plaintiff is a plan participant and he is seeking to recover for the plan as a whole these are the only requirements on the face of the statute itself
C. holding that an erisa insurers declaratory suit seeking a favorable interpretation of a standard policy clause against a party having no obligations under the plan was not an action to enforce the plan terms
D. holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant
E. holding that an action by a health care provider to recover payment from an insurance carrier is sufficiently distinct from an action by a plan participant against the insurer seeking recovery of benefits due under the terms of the insurance plan and therefore preemption in the former case would stretch the connected with or related to standard too far
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.