Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:12:46.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antitrust: Emergency Medicine Physicians Lack Standing to Bring Antitrust Action Against Physician-Certification Organization—Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2021

Sarah Gasper
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Select Recent Court Decisions
Information
American Journal of Law & Medicine , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 525 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 2005 WL 24705430 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2005) [hereinafter Daniel].

2 Id.

3 15 U.S.C. 22 (2000).

4 Daniel, 2005 WL 24705430.

5 Id. at 1.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id. at 2.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 The remaining hospitals were Children's Hospital of Michigan, Detroit Receiving Hospital and University Health Center, Forsyth Memorial Hospital, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Mercy Catholic Medical Center-Misericordia Division, St. Anthony Hospital, Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, Methodist Hospital of Indiana, and Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center. Id. at 3.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 4.

20 Id.

21 Other emergency medicine certification boards include the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and the American Board of Osteopathic Medicine. Id. at 2.

22 Id. at 4.

23 Id.

24 Id. at 4.

25 Id. at 2.

26 Id. at 7-12. Section 12 of the Clayton Act states: Any suit, action or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business; and all process in such cases may be served in the district of which it is an inhabitant, or wherever it is found. 15 U.S.C. 22 (2000).Google Scholar

27 Id. at 12.

28 Id.

29 Id. at 14-15.

30 This statute provides that a person can bring a lawsuit only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred , or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) (2000).

31 Daniel, 2005 WL 24705430 at 15-18.

32 Id. at 18.

33 Id. at 19.

34 Id. at 19, 20.

35 Id. at 20 (citing Phillips v. Seiter, 173 F.3d 609, 610 (7th Cir. 1999)).

36 Id.

37 Id. at 21.

38 The four relevant factors to antitrust standing include, an injury in fact (1) to plaintiffs business or property (2) that is not remote from or duplicative of that sustained by a more directly injured party (3) that qualifies as an antitrust injury and (4) that translates into reasonably quantifiable damages. Id. at 22 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

39 Id.

40 Id.

41 Id.

42 Id. at 24.

43 Id. (emphasis in the original).

44 Id.

45 Id. at 26-27.

46 Id. at 26.

47 Id.

48 Id. at 27.

49 Id.

50 Id.

51 Id. at 27-28 (Katzman, J., concurring and dissenting).

52 Id. at 28. (Katzman, J., concurring and dissenting).

53 Id. at 29. (Katzman, J., concurring and dissenting).

54 Id. at 30. (Katzman, J., concurring and dissenting).

55 Id. (Katzman, J., concurring and dissenting).