Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Klamath Medical Service Bureau
Decision Date | 01 April 1983 |
Docket Number | KLAMATH-LAKE,No. 81-3608,81-3608 |
Citation | 701 F.2d 1276 |
Parties | 1983-1 Trade Cases 65,254 PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION, an Oregon non-profit corporation, on behalf of its assignors, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KLAMATH MEDICAL SERVICE BUREAU, an Oregon non-profit corporation, and Klamath Bureau Pharmacy, Inc., a now dissolved Oregon profit corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Henry Kane, Beaverton, Or., for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas M. Triplett, Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwab, Portland, Or., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before KILKENNY, SNEED, and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges.
This appeal was filed by Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Association (Association), the assignee of the antitrust claims of a group of pharmacies that service the Klamath Falls, Oregon area. Association's assignors have been losing business to a local nonprofit health care provider, Klamath Medical Service Bureau (Provider), ever since it began to offer prescription drugs in kind under its group health insurance policies. Association in 1978 sued Provider and Klamath Bureau Pharmacy, Inc. (Pharmacy), a local for profit pharmacy Provider once used to distribute prescription drugs under its pharmacy benefit. The district court, after allowing Association to conduct extensive discovery, could not find any wrongdoing and dismissed the lawsuit in a series of partial summary judgments. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
At the time Association brought this suit, Provider offered two different group policies. 1 Both had major medical coverage and a package of basic benefits, but only one included a pharmacy benefit. This supplemental benefit, available for a higher Until July 1, 1976, Provider supplied pharmacy benefits exclusively through Pharmacy. Provider at one point considered expanding its distribution network. Its board of directors voted at their August 1974 meeting to invite local pharmacies to participate if they would accept reimbursement for each prescription at pharmacy cost plus ten percent, minus a copay amount of one dollar. The pharmacies' response, outlined in a letter from pharmacist Robert Gion, was to insist on receiving average wholesale cost plus $2.50 per prescription, minus the copay amount. This rate, which was modeled after Blue Cross' reimbursement policies, would have increased Provider's direct cost for most prescriptions. An expanded program would also have been more expensive to operate. Ted Dicken, Provider's executive director, estimated to the board of directors that increasing the number of participating pharmacies would result in a three-percent increase in administrative costs. The board referred the question to its consumer advisory committee, which recommended that the program not be expanded on these terms. The board agreed, deciding, in Dicken's words, that "at this time it would not be feasible to open the K.M.S.B. Prescriptive drug benefit to other prescription outlets." The increase in premiums and in administrative complexity outweighed the benefit of any added convenience to subscribers.
policy premium, entitled insureds to purchase prescription drugs for a small processing fee. The nominal "copay" amount was set at one or two dollars per prescription. Provider's success in marketing its pharmacy benefit led to this lawsuit.
In 1976 Provider decided to distribute drugs directly. It bought out Pharmacy, dissolved it, and set up a pharmacy on its own premises. Thus, as of July 1, 1976, insureds with few exceptions had to get their prescriptions filled by Provider if they used the pharmacy benefit.
Competing pharmacies were not entirely cut off from business with the insureds of Provider. Groups without the pharmacy benefit had no incentive to shop at Pharmacy while it supplied drugs for Provider because it charged them full market rates. Furthermore, once Provider began to fill prescriptions, it limited sales to insureds using the pharmacy benefit. This restriction forced other policyholders, and all uninsured customers, to use the community pharmacies. The 10,000 policyholders without the pharmacy benefit were still entitled to reimbursement under their major medical provision for 80% of their medical expenses, including prescription drugs, subject to a fifty or hundred dollar deductible. Their purchases constituted a substantial amount of business of the pharmacies. Even policyholders with the pharmacy benefit were free to patronize other pharmacies after hours or during holidays. Although these purchases were made at full cost, reimbursement of 100% of this cost less the copay amount was provided under the terms of the pharmacy benefit. This privilege was important because Provider's pharmacy was only open until 6:00 P.M. on weekdays and 3:00 P.M. on Saturday. Policyholders traveling outside of the Klamath Falls area, and those living in outlying communities, could also use local pharmacies and be repaid under the terms of the pharmacy benefit.
Nonetheless, Provider's prescription drug program cut substantially into the business of local pharmacies. Provider's prescriptions more than doubled between 1974 and 1978, from 33,440 to 77,541; several local pharmacies went out of business and the sales of others dropped rapidly. In response seven pharmacies assigned their antitrust claims to Association, which then brought this lawsuit.
Association alleged three causes of action in its complaint. First, it accused Pharmacy and Provider of receiving prescription drugs on terms unavailable to its members, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 13(f). Second, it claimed that Pharmacy and Provider conspired with affiliated Provider and Pharmacy answered with the affirmative defense of exemption from the antitrust laws under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1011-1015. Association sought summary judgment on this issue in March, 1979. The district court agreed to strike the defense as it affected the agreement between Provider and Pharmacy. 2
physicians, public and private signatories of the group contracts, and labor unions in an attempt to monopolize and restrain trade by compelling insureds to boycott Association's members, in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1-2. Third, it alleged that the insurance contracts tied the health care policy to the prescription drug benefit, in violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 14.
In October 1979 Provider filed for partial summary judgment asserting that the McCarran-Ferguson Act shielded it from both the charges of tying and those parts of the boycott claim that rested on the health insurance contract between Provider and its insureds. The court agreed.
This left for resolution only the Robinson-Patman charge and the boycott claim as it applied to Provider's agreement with Pharmacy. Provider and Pharmacy moved for summary judgment on these remaining claims in August 1981. They sought, in the alternative, dismissal of the action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a) because Association was not a real party in interest. They also argued that the assignments did not convey all of the assignors' claims. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. Because of the likelihood of appeal, it went on to reach the merits of the remaining issues. It held for the defendants on these as well. The Robinson-Patman claim fell because Association had turned up only one minor price variation in the thousands of invoices it reviewed during discovery. The court then summarily denied the residual boycott and tying claims. 3 Association appealed.
The issues that must be considered by this court are as follows. First is the validity of the assignments. If Association cannot act as assignee, this appeal must be dismissed. Next are the major substantive problems: the merits of the Robinson-Patman claim, the affirmative defense based on the McCarran-Ferguson Act to the tying and boycott claims, and the merits of these two claims. Last is Association's argument that the district court should have allowed it to amend or supplement its claim. After considering briefly the use of summary judgment in antitrust cases, we will address these issues in order.
The district court found that Association was not a real party in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dual Diagnosis Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Blue Cross California, Case No.: SA CV 15-0736-DOC (DFMx)
...seek to vindicate.1 The Court must look to the contracts between the patients and Plaintiffs. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiffs' assignments were effectuated through two different forms: Form A and Form B. id. ¶ 53; i......
-
Legal Principles Defining the Scope of the Federal Antitrust Exemption for Insurance
...... of different medical providers; competitive market practices. ... such as funeral service policies that offered smaller cash. ...Title. Ins. Rating Bureau of Arizona, Inc. ., 700 F.2d 1247. (9th ... McCarran. Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Klamath Medical ......
-
Calm Ventures LLC v. Newsom
...be futile, there was no need to prolong the litigation by permitting further amendment"); Klamath–Lake Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau , 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that "futile amendments should not be permitted"). Accordingly, Plaintiff's federal claims ......
-
In re Delta Dental Antitrust Litig., No. 19 CV 6734
...pleadings, as it is an affirmative defense on which defendants bear the burden of proof. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau , 701 F.2d 1276, 1281, 1279 (9th Cir. 1983) (resolving the "affirmative defense of exemption from the antitrust laws under the McCarran-Ferguso......
-
Statutory Exemptions for Regulated Industries
...Rhode Island’s contracts with customers are part of the business of insurance); Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1286 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Although the insurer was a traditional insurer [in Pireno], not, as in this case, a health care provider, this should......
-
Table of Cases
...Cir. 1973), 62 Kirkwood v. Union Elec. Co., 671 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1982), 30 Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1983), 51 Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997), 100 Korkala v. Allpro Imaging, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70727 (D.N.J. 2009), 3......
-
Table of Cases
...329 Kinderstart.com, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2006 WL 3246596 (N.D. Cal. 2006), 66 Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Servs. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1983), 282, 287 Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 232 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2000), 228 Kraft, 246 Wis. 920 (2001), 228 Kruman ......
-
Table of cases
...v. Monongalia County Gen. Hosp. Co., 220 W. Va. 602, 648 S.E.2d 366 (2007), 23 Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1983), 36, 38, 100 Ky. Ass’n of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller, 538 U.S. 329 (2003), 36 Kitsap Physicians Serv. v. Wash. Dental Serv .......