refuses to provide it does not change the fact that Plaintiff must exhaust a claim, however styled, that is “a backdoor attempt to enforce the Act’s requirements and to secure a remedy for [the insurer’s alleged failure to provide benefits.” Id. Phillips, 2011 3047475, at *7 n. 12. That logic applies to this case. Because Plaintiffs’ claims, in essence, are claims seeking the retention of benefits, they arise under the Medicare Act, and Plaintiffs were obligated to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing this action. Thus, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to consider those claims. B. To the Extent That Any Claims Are Not Subject to Exhaustion Requirements, They Are Dism rnia, Inc., 98 F.3d 496 (9th Cir.1996) (same). But see Phillips, 2011 WL 3047475, at *7 (<HOLDING>). There is also authority for the proposition
holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to gender discrimination and retaliation claims where she had only asserted discrimination based on race and disability in her eeoc complaint holding that the plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies and it does not matter that the plaintiff was using state law as the vehicle to press her assertion holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea