124 S.Ct. 2488, 2495, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004). Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated: The policy choices reflected in the inclusion of certain remedies and the exclusion of others under the federal scheme would be completely undermined if ERISA-plan participants and beneficiaries were free to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA. The six carefully integrated civil enforcement provisions found in § [1132(a)] of the statute as finally enacted ... provide strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies.... Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). As such, a claim that “duplicates, supplements, or supplants” the remedies provided by ERISA runs afoul of Congressional intent and is preempted. Id.; see also Kidneigh, 345 F.3d at 1185 (<HOLDING>). However, a claim only falls within ERISA’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding flsa enforcement scheme preempted contract negligence and fraud claims (B) holding that even a state law  regulating insurance will be preempted if it provides a separate vehicle to assert a claim for benefits outside of or in addition to erisas remedial scheme (C) holding claims under the kentucky act were preempted because they conflicted with erisas civil enforcement scheme (D) holding that a proper waiver of interest by a nonpartieipant in a plan is not preempted by erisas antialienation provisions (E) holding claim providing additional remedies conflicts with erisas remedial scheme and is preempted
(E)