With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Because GOL § 5-335 is Preempted by the Medicare Act In addition to their core claim for a declaratory judgment regarding the effect of GOL § 5-335 on MA organization reimbursement rights, Plaintiffs also bring a claim for deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349, seeking compensatory damages, enhancement of damages, and attorney’s fees. There is a colorable argument that the exhaustion requirement does not apply to these claims. Courts have held that state tort law claims — even those that “relate to a denial of benefits” — -may not “arise under” the Medicare Act, “especially when th[o]se claims do not seek reimbursement or provision of Medicare benefits.” Kelly v. Advantage Health, Inc., No. CIV A 99-0362, 1999 WL 294796, at *4 (E.D.La. May 11, 1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Ardary v. Aetna Health Plans of

A: holding action did not arise under the patent laws
B: holding that victims injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle when the victim received injuries from a gun fired in the vehicle
C: holding that a claim did not arise under a workers compensation law when it stated a right to relief in tort and sought common law damages distinct from statutory compensation scheme
D: holding that tort law claim for injuries allegedly sustained because of negligently improper denial of coverage did not arise under act
D.