whether the Medicaid statute impliedly authorizes a private cause of action, a court must apply the four-prong test laid out in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975): (1) whether the statutes were created for the plaintiffs special benefit, (2) whether there is evidence of legislative intent to create a private remedy, (3) whether a private remedy would be consistent with legislative purposes, and (4) whether the area is one traditionally relegated to the states. P.G. Hospital does not address these factors in its opposition to Advantage’s motion to dismiss. In any event, a number of federal courts have declined to find a private right of action under the Medicaid statute. See e.g., Baum v. Northern Dutchess Hosp., 764 F.Supp.2d. 410, 415 (N.D.N.Y.2011) (<HOLDING>); Duncan v. Johnsonr-Mathers Health Care, No.
holding that the medicaid statute did not create an enforceable cause of action against a private health care facility holding that nursing home patients did not have a property interest in receiving care at a particular facility holding that claim against nursing home regarding patients death from spider bite fell within the statutory definition of a health care liability claim holding that a medicaid recipient who was involuntarily removed from private nursing did not have a private right of action under the medicaid statute against a nursing home holding that the medicaid statute as amended by the federal nursing home reform amendments did not create a private cause of action for nursing home residents against nursing homes