Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc.

864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1994-08-31

civil; private damages suit by excluded physician; defendants' motions for partial summary judgment on Count III (hospital privilege suspension) and Count I (closed-panel PPO) granted (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    He was informed that there were already enough internists in his quadrant of the city to meet HealthcAoice member needs.
  2. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    Plaintiff asserts that Sand Lake, ORMC and another internist conspired to blacklist Plaintiff by summarily suspending his staff and emergency room privileges and circulating to other doctors the notice of his suspension.
  3. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    To be a proper party, a plaintiff must have suffered an antitrust injury and must be an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws.
  4. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    During this period of time, Plaintiff had staff privileges at Florida Hospital’s several campuses, Charter Hospital and Glenbeigh.
  5. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    Immediately after his suspension, Plaintiff began using Florida Hospital for the hospitalization of his patients.
  6. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    During the time his privileges were suspended at Sand Lake and ORMC, Plaintiff was able to admit patients to several other hospitals.
  7. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    Whatever may be said about his personal injuries, his suspension from ORMC and Sand Lake does not constitute an antitrust injury.
  8. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    Plaintiff responded, “I haven’t sat down -with a pencil and paper and tried to figure it out. But I figured, "with what everyone else is telling me, I could have done 20 percent better.”
  9. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    Plaintiffs expectation is rooted in an assumption that his application would be accepted, and that he would serve on an equal footing with all other doctors on the closed panel.
  10. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    He hopes to benefit from the Defendant’s allegedly anticompetitive conduct.
  11. 7 Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) not no-evidence
    He merely hopes to profit from the allegedly anticompetitive conduct of others.
  12. 8 Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) not no-evidence
    A second factor is the nature of the plaintiffs damages claims. Id. If the claims are highly speculative,' the plaintiff may not have standing.
  13. 8 Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) not no-evidence
    There are currently 2,200 licensed physicians in the Orlando area. Healthchoice presently has 863 physicians on its provider panel in Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties.
  14. 8 Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) not no-evidence
    It is impossible to predict how many of the doctors not currently on the panel would choose to participate in Healthchoice.
  15. 8 Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) not no-evidence
    There is no way to know how many patients would choose Plaintiff as their internist or what services those patients would require.
  16. 8 Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) not no-evidence
    It appears that any damages Plaintiff may be able to claim are highly speculative. Therefore, Plaintiff is not an efficient enforcer of this alleged antitrust violation.