have reached the same result: To the extent Plaintiff argues that her challenge to [the MA organization] Kaiser’s secondary payer rights cannot “arise under” the Medicare Act because Kaiser does not have a federal cause of action to enforce such rights, see Parra, 2011 WL 1119736, at *5, she is mistakenly conflating the question whether Kaiser has a private right of action under federal law with the question whether she can challenge a benefits determination without exhausting her claim administratively. The fact that Kaiser has to resort to state law processes to collect secondary payer reimbursement when a beneficiar t an HHS Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is without jurisdiction to adjudicate certain common law claims seeking damages. See Matthews v. Leavitt, 452 F.3d at 153 (<HOLDING>). But see id. at 153 n. 10 (“We intimate no
holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach holding that statute does not provide for the adjudication by the alj of a state law breach of contract action for damages that is independent of the aljs determination of entitlement to benefits under the terms of the applicable agreement recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that the failure to act in good faith  does not amount to an independent tort the breach of the implied duty under the ucc gives rise only to a cause of action for breach of contract