the court ruled that mr. davila's and ms. calad's (the respondents') state of texas causes of action, both involving utilization review decisions by managed care entities (in this case cigna and aetna) that were alleged to adversely affect patient care, where in both cases utilization review decisions contradicted the advice of the respondents' personal physicians), fell within erisa § 1132(a)(1)(b). the court therefore ruled these complaints were completely pre-empted by erisa § 1132 and removable to federal district court, therefore giving federal court jurisdiction over resolution of the complaints and defining erisa as the law to be followed, superseding the applicable texas statute (the thcls). consequently, the limited so-called "equitable remedies" available under erisa § 1132 must be the exclusive remedies available to redress damage alleged to be suffered as a result of these managed care utilization review decisions.