Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass'n
| Decision Date | 12 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 80-1359,80-1368,s. 80-1359 |
| Citation | 214 U.S.App.D.C. 76,663 F.2d 253 |
| Parties | , 1981-2 Trade Cases 64,217 FEDERAL PRESCRIPTION SERVICE, INC., et al. v. AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, William S. Apple, et al. FEDERAL PRESCRIPTION SERVICE, INC., et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Michael H. McConihe, Washington, D. C., with whom Paul L. O'Brien, Arthur D. McKey, Joel E. Hoffman and C. Coleman Bird, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for American Pharmaceutical Association appellant in No. 80-1359 and cross/appellee in No. 80-1368.
George S. Leonard, Washington, D. C., for Federal Prescription Service, Inc., et al., appellees in No. 80-1368 and cross/appellants in No. 80-1359.
Richard M. Rindler and Gilbert E. Geldon, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellees National Association of Retail Druggists in No. 80-1368.
Before MacKINNON and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges and DAVIES *, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Fargo, North Dakota.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MacKINNON.
Federal Prescription Service, Inc. ("Federal") and its three owners brought an antitrust damage suit against the American Pharmaceutical Association, Inc. ("American") and certain other defendants. The other defendants have since been either dismissed or dropped as defendants and then named as co-conspirators. The district court found that American, the sole remaining defendant, had committed several violations of section one of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, including participation in an unlawful conspiracy with the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners to harm Federal through a series of governmental actions aimed at Federal's mail order pharmacy practice in Iowa. The court found that these and other unlawful actions damaged Federal to the extent of $28,000 in past lost profits and $6000 in costs to check for forgeries attributable to American's conspiracy against mail order pharmacy. The district court declined, however, to award any damages for future loss of profits or for losses incurred by the individual owners of Federal. American appeals from the ruling of liability, Federal appeals from the dismissal of a co-defendant and from the limitations on damages. We reverse the award of damages, holding that the facts of this case reflect no actionable conspiracy under the antitrust laws. We thus do not reach the question whether the amount of damages was properly computed.
The district court's opinion, 484 F.Supp. 1195 (D.D.C.1980), details the facts and we recite only those that are relevant to the disposition on appeal. The plaintiff, Federal, was organized in 1963 and operates out of the small town of Madrid, Iowa. It is licensed to dispense prescription drugs by the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners, an agency of the State of Iowa. 1 Federal specializes in mail order pharmacy: it solicits the business of persons throughout the United States, who mail their prescriptions to Federal and receive their drugs by return mail.
The American Pharmaceutical Association is the national professional society of pharmacists in the United States. Its 60,000 members include practicing pharmacists, scientists, educators, and government-employed pharmacists. The court found that about one-third of all practicing pharmacists in the United States are members of American.
The district court found that to maintain a sufficient volume of prescriptions a mail order pharmacy must advertise discounted prices on at least some of its items. These prices naturally tend to divert customers from the more traditional local pharmacies, which fill prescriptions for a walk-in local clientele. The reliance of mail order pharmacy on advertising and its competitive threat to the more traditional pharmacies was well known to the sole defendant in this case.
Since 1960 American has campaigned against the distribution of prescription drugs by mail. The district court found that
(a)lthough this opposition was usually couched in terms of a concern that mail order pharmacies undermined the pharmacist-patient-physician relationship and thus threatened patient safety or public health, in fact (American) throughout was motivated primarily by its concerns for the economic well-being of its members. The validity of the health concerns, repeatedly expressed, was never satisfactorily supported at trial.
484 F.Supp. at 1200. In general terms, American sought to persuade governmental agencies, other trade groups, and national magazines that mail order dispensing of prescription drugs is harmful to the public health. This message was presented in correspondence, at meetings, in speeches, and in American's Journal and newsletter, which were distributed to its members and to others in the pharmacy profession.
One early success came in 1960, when American, acting jointly with the National Association of Retail Druggists, persuaded the American Medical Association to adopt a resolution calling upon physicians to discourage use of mail order prescription services, except in rural areas. American's message was also partially responsible, the district court found, for the passage of 16 state laws forbidding mail order practice, and 30-35 state laws or regulations that hampered mail order pharmacy by prohibiting the advertising of prescription drugs. 2 In addition, in 1962, American reported that 16 state boards of pharmacy had responded to its message by issuing cease-and-desist orders against mail order houses.
Playing an important role in American's anti-mail order pharmacy campaign was its Code of Ethics. Either expressly or by the interpretation of American's Judicial Board, the Code aimed to limit participation in mail order pharmacy by establishing two prohibitions: no member pharmacist could participate in any service eliminating the pharmacist-patient-prescriber relationship; and no member pharmacist could "solicit professional practice by means of advertising." The effect of these prohibitions was strengthened by a further prohibition that no member pharmacist could continue his employment in a pharmacy that did not comply with the other requirements of the Code. Id. 1201. 3 In 1975, faced with a Justice Department antitrust suit, American dropped its advertising ban in favor of a new provision stating that pharmacists "should strive to provide information to patients regarding professional services truthfully, accurately, and fully and should avoid misleading patients regarding the nature, cost, or value of the pharmacist's professional services." Id. The court found that the other bans, however, remained in effect.
Also instrumental in American's anti-mail order pharmacy campaign was its chief executive officer, William S. Apple. The district court found that Apple was a co-conspirator of American, on the basis that he had
traveled throughout the country to make speeches on behalf of (American,) and wrote numerous articles in which he constantly attacked mail order pharmacies and emphasized the need to uphold the Code of Ethics and rulings of the Judicial Board. Mail order prescription was pictured as a "scheme" that threatened to destroy community pharmacy service. Pharmacists were told they were fighting for economic survival and the opportunity to earn a living. Price-cutting was said to be a gimmick for conning the public. Advertising was described as professionally improper. Pharmacists were urged to alert physicians and regulatory officials as well as other pharmacists to the danger perceived. In this fashion, with the aid of (American's) publications, Apple largely succeeded in uniting the profession to a concerted opposition to mail order pharmacies.
The district court found that Apple and American had enlisted several other organizations in a conspiracy to inhibit mail order competition for the benefit of American's pharmacist members. Among those labelled as co-conspirators was the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. The membership of this group-a private organization-includes the members of the licensing boards which in each state regulate pharmaceutical practice. The National Association participated in the conspiracy, the court found, by adopting American resolutions that opposed mail order drug distribution and drug advertising and by sending copies of these to all of its members. The National Association also cooperated in setting up the 1960 conference "to determine what steps should be taken to oppose mail order drug distribution." Id. at 1203. At that meeting "all state boards (of pharmacy) were asked to use every legal method to oppose the establishment of mail order houses." Id.
The court found that the American College of Apothecaries was also a co-conspirator. Made up of pharmacy owners, this group was a national organization affiliated with American that "joined with American in opposing the distribution of prescription drugs by mail." 484 F.Supp. at 1203.
Also found to be a co-conspirator was each state pharmaceutical association that had been recognized by American. Each of these associations has the right to select two voting delegates to American's House of Delegates, its policy-making body. The chief administrative officers of all state pharmaceutical associations form the National Conference of State Pharmaceutical Association Executives. In its annual conference in 1960, this group and American co-sponsored a conference that resolved to oppose mail order pharmacies. In addition, 17 state associations had entered into reciprocal membership agreements with American whereby applicants for state association membership had to abide by American's Code of Ethics.
One of these state organizations affiliated with American was the Iowa Pharmaceutical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
...Schoenkopf v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, 637 F.2d 205, 208 (3d Cir.1980); Federal Prescription Service v. American Pharmaceutical Association, 663 F.2d 253, 267 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 1293, 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982); Southway Theatres, Inc. v. Georgia......
-
Feld Entm't, Inc. v. Am. Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
...held beyond the protection of Noerr.” Whelan v. Abell, 48 F.3d 1247, 1255 (D.C.Cir.1995) (quoting Federal Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharmaceutical Ass'n, 663 F.2d 253, 263 (D.C.Cir.1981)), see also Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unltd., 404 U.S. 508, 512–13, 92 S.Ct. 609, 30 L.Ed.......
-
Nader v. The Democratic Nat. Committee
...60, 113 S.Ct. 1920. The plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate that the sham exception applies. Federal Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharm. Ass'n, 663 F.2d 253, 262-63 (D.C.Cir.1981). The defendants argue that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the sham exception to the Noerr-P......
-
Kreuzer v. American Academy of Periodontology, 83-1394
...of the Supreme Court's decisions in this area. Two cases do discuss the issue in part. In Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Association, 663 F.2d 253 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 1293, 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982), this court stated that an infe......
-
Table of Cases
...Commc’ns, 346 U.S. 86 (1953), 246 FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 540 U.S. 582 (1981), 270 Federal Prescription Serv. v. Am. Pharm. Ass’n, 663 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1981), 379, 380 Feitelson v. Google, Inc. , 80 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2015), 190 Fineman v. Armstrong World Indus., 980 F.2d 1......
-
Analysis of Trade and Professional Association Horizontal Restraints Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
...1195, 1207 (D.D.C. 1980) (association ban on member advertising was illegal per se), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds , 663 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 48. E.g. , Plymouth Dealers’ Ass’n , 279 F.2d at 132. 49. United States v. Serta Assocs., 296 F. Supp. 1121, 1125@26 (N.D. I......
-
Table of Cases
...35, 59 Fed. Prescription Serv. v. Am. Pharm. Ass’n, 484 F. Supp. 1195 (D.D.C. 1980), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds , 663 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1981), 32 Fed. Prescription Serv. v. Am. Pharm. Ass’n, 663 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1981), 98, 110 Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., In re , ......
-
Dealing with Competitors
...1378, 1383-84 (7th Cir. 1992); Federal Prescription Serv. v. Am. Pharm. Ass’n, 471 F. Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1979), rev’d on other grounds , 663 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 32 Frequently Asked Antitrust Questions legislators or regulators. The exchange of information for this purpose is protected......