Plaintiffs, a partnership of physicians and medical practitioners and a corporation, sued defendant
Procedural Posture
Plaintiffs, a partnership of physicians and medical practitioners and a corporation, sued defendant hospital alleging violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1 and 2, § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 18 and violations of § 16720 of the Cartwright Act and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The hospital moved for summary judgment and plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment.
Overview
Attorney for lawsuit is a civil attorney, commonly known as a litigator and are hired by clients to defend a civil lawsuit in a court of law. Plaintiffs asserted that they were a large self insured employer who purchased hospital services directly for their employees. Plaintiffs alleged that since the hospital purchased a rival facility it eliminated all competition in the market and willfully acquired monopoly power. The hospital had exploited its monopoly power by charging monopoly prices for inpatient services. Plaintiffs contended that these monopoly prices had caused a direct injury to plaintiffs' business or property. The hospital claimed that plaintiffs lacked standing. The court found that plaintiffs had standing as direct purchasers injured by the hospital's alleged monopoly prices. Plaintiffs failed to show that they were prepared and financially able to acquire the rival facility. The complaint was devoid of any allegations of threatened loss or injury cognizable in equity to plaintiffs as physicians that proximately resulted from antitrust violations. Injury from increased rather than from decreased competition was not an antitrust injury. Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a claim on behalf of a third party regarding its exclusion from the acute care inpatient market.
Outcome
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was granted. The hospital's motion was granted with regard to plaintiffs' standing as a potential competitor, a competitor in the physician's services market and with regard to plaintiffs' claim that the hospital threatened another party. Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge an acquisition by the hospital.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiffs, insureds and parents, sued defendant, an insurer and plan administrator, for injuries they suffered after their minor daughter died of liver failure, alleging that defendant, wrongfully denied coverage for a liver transplant that may have saved their daughter's life. Plaintiffs asserted various state law claims, including a claim for unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Defendant moved to dismiss.
Overview
Defendant denied coverage on the ground that the child's medical benefits did not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services. In support of its motion to dismiss, defendant contended that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by §§ 502(a) and 514(a) (29 U.S.C.S. §§ 1132(a), 1144(a)) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), because the claims challenged or related to a denial of benefits under an employee benefit plan that was subject to ERISA. The court agreed that both provisions of ERISA preempted plaintiffs' breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair business practices claims because they were directly related to defendant's denial of benefits despite plaintiffs' attempts to characterize them otherwise. The court concluded, however, that ERISA did not preempt plaintiffs' intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim insofar as that claim was based on events--heckling by defendant's employees--that occurred during a visit to defendant's headquarters more than a year after the coverage decision. Plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to state a claim for IIED.
Outcome
The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims except plaintiffs' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress that was based on an event that occurred after the coverage decision was made.