Benjamin v. Aroostook Medical Center, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 May 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 96-2047,96-2047 |
Citation | 113 F.3d 1 |
Parties | 1997-1 Trade Cases P 71,797 James BENJAMIN, Jr., M.D., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. The AROOSTOOK MEDICAL CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
James Benjamin, Jr., M.D. on brief, pro se.
Christopher D. Nyhan, Portland, ME, Penny Littell, and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLC, Portland, ME, on brief, for defendants, appellees.
Before SELYA, CYR and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant James Benjamin, Jr., M.D. appeals from the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to appellees, The Aroostook Medical Center ("TAMC") and various physicians associated with TAMC. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the district court's judgment for essentially the reasons stated in its published opinion reported at Benjamin v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., 937 F.Supp. 957 (D.Me.1996). We add the following comments.
1. Appellant's claim that the individual appellees conspired to restrain trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 is analyzed under the "rule of reason." See Flegel v. Christian Hosp., Northeast-Northwest, 4 F.3d 682, 686 (8th Cir.1993) ( )(citing cases). We agree that the appellant did not make any showing of harm to competition, either directly or by reasonable inference. Thus, summary judgment was appropriate. See Rebel Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 515, 133 L.Ed.2d 424 (1995).
2. Because the facts upon which appellant bases his claim of discrimination concerning his contract with TAMC occurred after 1991, the claim is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See § 1981(b). After reviewing the record and appellant's arguments on appeal, however, we find that appellant has failed to show that TAMC intentionally discriminated against him based on his race. See Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86, 95 (1st Cir.1996).
3. Appellant's claim of malicious abuse of process is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Under Maine law, res judicata bars the relitigation of issues that were, or could have been, decided in a prior case if: "(1) the same parties or their privies are involved in both actions; (2) a valid final judgment was entered in the prior action; and (3) the matters present for decision now were, or might have been, litigated in the prior action." Currier v. Cyr, 570 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Me.1990).
In 1996, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, on appeal from a lower court's decision adverse to appellant, held that TAMC was immune from appellant's state law tort claims concerning the peer review process. Benjamin v. Aroostook Medical Ctr., Law Docket No. Aro-95-569 (Me. November 14, 1996). In so holding, the court relied on the federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litig.
...judgment, this requires a “showing of harm to competition, either directly or by reasonable inference.” Benjamin v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., Inc., 113 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1997) ; see also Addamax Corp. v. Open Software Found., Inc., 888 F.Supp. 274, 283 (D.Mass.1995) (Tauro, J.) (“To state a She......
-
W.S.K. v. M.H.S.B.
...requirements and is not entitled to immunity. Id.; see also Benjamin v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., 937 F.Supp. 957 (D.Me.1996), aff'd, 113 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1997), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1019, 115 S.Ct. 1363, 131 L.Ed.2d In reviewing the grant of summary judgment concerning M.H.S.B.'s immunity unde......
-
Villalobos v. Garcia-Llorens, No. CIV. 99-2034(HL).
...rule of reason standard to antitrust claims involving hospital privileges and practices between doctors. See Benjamin v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., Inc., 113 F.3d 1, 1 (1st Cir.1997); Betkerur v. Aultman Hosp. Ass'n, 78 F.3d 1079, 1093 & n. 9 (6th Cir.1996); BCB Anesthesia Care v. Passavant Mem'l......
-
Joseph v. Wentworth Institute of Technology, No. CIV. A. 99-10989-MEL.
...(if any at all) has been clarified. 9. Joseph asserts that the First Circuit reached this issue in Benjamin v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., 113 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1997) (per curiam). In Benjamin, the Circuit Court briefly commented that the plaintiff, a doctor with provisional staff privileges who ......
-
Regulated Industries
...conspire); Benjamin v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., 937 F. Supp. 957, 967 (D. Me. 1996), aff'd sub nom. Benjamin v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., Inc., 113 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997) (hospital and peer review committee could be considered a single entity). The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have not followed this ......
-
Table of Cases
...Servs., 324 F.R.D. 89 (D.N.J. 2018), 934 Ben Hur Coal Co. v. Wells, 242 F.2d 481 (10th Cir. 1957), 602 Benjamin v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., 113 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997), 1585, 1587 Benko v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 789 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2015), 885 Ben M. Hogan Co.; United States v., 686 F. Sup......