This court noted that Wood, while seeking money damages for his allegedly improper termination in his state claim, sought equitable damages for the same termination in his federal ERISA claim.  "Allowing such parallel claims to be tried in both state and federal courts would undermine Congress' choice of remedies as reflected in Section 502(a)."

This court further explained the reasoning of complete preemption by turning to Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 143 (1990):  "'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 § 502(a) of the statute as finally enacted ... provide strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly.'"