Carmine Cicio received employer-sponsored health insurance coverage through Vytra Healthcare, an HMO. In March 1997, Cicio was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. In January 1998, his doctor, Edward Samuel, asked Vytra to approve a double stem cell transplant, describing the procedure as medically necessary and possibly lifesaving. Vytra denied the request on the basis that the procedure was “experimental/investigational” and not covered under Cicio’s policy. Cicio, through Dr. Samuel, appealed the decision. By the time Vytra approved a single stem cell transplant, the window for effective treatment had passed, and Cicio died about six weeks later. His widow sued Vytra in the New York Supreme Court, alleging eighteen causes of action, most of them under state law. The defendants first removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, contending that Mrs. Cicio’s claims were covered under ERISA, and then moved to dismiss based on the preemption doctrine. Does Mrs. Cicio have the right to sue Vytra under state tort law, or is her action preempted by ERISA? [Cicio v. Vytra Healthcare, 542 U.S. 933 (2004).]