411.24(b). As such, we discern from the regulations that the government may only seek recovery directly from a primary plan after it has issued a recovery demand letter to that primary plan. See 42 C.F.R § 411.22(c). Otherwise, the MSPA would allow the government to seek recovery from a primary plan though the primary plan’s reimbursement obligation had not been triggered. Id. We further note that although 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395y(b)(3)(A) establishes a “private cause of action for damages,” a consensus among the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal has determined that the MSPA does not allow a private party to bring suit on behalf of the United States government for the reimbursement of conditional Medicare payments. See e.g., Woods v. Empire Health Choice, Inc., 574 F.3d 92, 100 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 509
recognizing private right of action holding that a private party could pursue a representative action on behalf of others under the ucl only if the party met the requirements for a class action holding that a private party may bring an action in a federal district court seeking injunctive relief on the basis of garmon preemption for only arguably protected or prohibited activity holding that the mspa only permits a private party to bring suit where the private party has itself suffered an injury holding that where statutory remedies exist private employees do not have a private cause of action for violation of state constitutional rights