The State of ERISA after 35 Years: Complex, Yet Arguably Simplistic, Which Federal Statute May Be Unraveled with a Touch of Supreme Common Sense

I. Introduction II. Generally, Pre-empts All State Laws That Relate Employee Benefit Plans III. While Broad in its Reach and Scope, Pre-emption Clause Is Not Unlimited IV. and High Court's Own Pre-emption Jurisprudence Has Left Much be Desired V. Conclusion I. INTRODUCTION United States Supreme Court has often observed federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act is comprehensive and reticulated statute, (2) which United States Congress adopted after a careful, decade-long study of private retirement pension (3) Overall, purpose of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, most commonly known as ERISA, was to provide a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans. (4) As such, was enacted as center piece of federal substantive law be enforced and, thereafter, developed by courts, a federal law of rights and obligations under ERISA-regulated welfare benefit (5) Although U.S. Supreme Court has determined that ERISA's definition of an employee welfare benefit plan is ultimately circular, it has applied a common [sense] understanding of word 'plan.' (6) The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ... as amended, 29 U.S.C. [section] 1001 et seq. (ERISA), comprehensively regulates employee pension and welfare plans. (7) An employee welfare-benefit plan or welfare plan is defined as one which provides employees medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in event of sickness, accident, disability or death, whether these benefits are provided through purchase of insurance or otherwise. (8) enacting ERISA, Congress's primary concern was with mismanagement of funds accumulated finance employee benefits and failure pay employees benefits from accumulated funds. (9) Effective January 1, 1975, (10) was intended protect both interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries. (11) One of principal goals of is enable employers 'to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits.' (12) In fact, ERISA requires every employee benefit plan be established and maintained pursuant a written instrument, specifying basis on which payments are made and from plan. (13) Insofar as Congress's intent, [F]ederal statute does not go about protecting plan participants and their beneficiaries by requiring employers provide any given set of minimum benefits, (14) but instead controls administration of plan benefits as by imposing reporting and disclosure mandates, participation and vesting requirements, funding standards and fiduciary responsibilities for plan administrators. (15) It is clear that was also intended have a federal regulatory effect on the health care industry, which is, by definition, realm within which welfare benefit plans must operate, (16) even though Congress chose not displace general health care regulation that has historically been a matter of state or local concern. (17) To this end, includes expansive preemption provisions, which are intended ensure that employee benefit plan regulation would be 'exclusively a federal concern.' (18) Therefore, any state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants civil enforcement remedy conflicts with clear congressional intent make remedy exclusive and is therefore pre-empted. (19) If a state law conflicts with provisions of or operates frustrate its object, that inquiry and affirmative answer, alone, will resolve case. (20) face of ... direct clash between state law and provisions and objectives of ERISA, state law cannot stand. …