Indiana Federation of Dentists v. F.T.C.

Decision Date12 October 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-1700,83-1700
Parties1984-2 Trade Cases 66,229 INDIANA FEDERATION OF DENTISTS, an unincorporated association, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Bruce W. Graham, Trueblood, Fountain, Graham & O'Reilly, Lafayette, Ind., for petitioner.

Howard Shapiro, Federal Trade Comm., Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before PELL and COFFEY, Circuit Judges, and FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge.

COFFEY, Circuit Judge.

The Indiana Federation of Dentists ("IFD") petitions this court to review an order of the Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") requiring the IFD and its member dentists to "cease and desist from engaging" in a collective refusal to comply with the group dental health care insurers' directive to submit copies of a patient's dental radiographs along with the patient's insurance claim form. We conclude that under a rule of reason analysis, the evidence presented at the administrative hearing failed to establish that the conduct of the IFD and its member dentists had an anticompetitive effect in a relevant market. Accordingly, we vacate the Commission's "cease and desist" order.

I

The parties admit that the controversy in this case arises from two alleged cost-containment provisions that insurance companies include within their group dental health care plans. 1 These provisions are entitled "predetermination of claims" and "least expensive adequate course of treatment." According to the former plan, the dentist and patient may, at their discretion, submit a proposed course of dental treatment to the insurer for review. The insurer, in turn, will provide the dentist and patient with an estimate of the insurance benefits to be paid for the proposed treatment. The "least expensive adequate course of treatment" plan provides that for allcourses of dental treatment, whether proposed or completed, the group dental health care insurer will pay benefits only for the least expensive treatment that is "commonly accepted as providing good dental care." Indiana Federation of Dentists, 101 F.T.C. 57, 159 n. 4 (1983).

In an effort to enforce these alleged cost-containment provisions, the group dental health care insurers direct dentists to submit copies of a patient's dental radiographs ("x-rays") along with the patient's insurance claim form. The claim form and x-rays, if submitted, are initially reviewed by lay personnel employed by the insurance company. 2 These lay employees have the authority to approve the proposed or completed course of dental treatment. If an insurer's lay employee questions a particular course of treatment, the claim form and x-rays are transmitted to a licensed dentist, selected and hired by the insurer to review dental claims. Based upon an analysis of the claim form and x-rays alone, without a patient case history much less a complete dental examination, the insurer's employed dentist determines the least expensive type of treatment that will, from the insurer's standpoint, provide "good dental care."

The instant case concerns the practice of the 84 current and 8 former IFD member dentists who collectively refused to comply with the group dental health care insurers' directive to submit copies of a patient's dental x-rays along with the patient's insurance claim form. The IFD maintains that "[p]roper diagnosis and treatment planning predicates the doctor correlating all diagnostic aids, with a history and with all clinical findings." Id. at 119, 129 (emphasis added). In accord with this policy of quality and proper dental care, the IFD member dentists "provide all diagnostic aids [including x-rays] to third parties on an in-office basis and with the consent of the patient." Id. at 121-22. 3 Furthermore, it is the IFD policy that the insurers' employed dentists conduct this examination and review of all diagnostic and clinical aids used in formulating a proper course of dental treatment. Pursuant to Indiana law, "[a]ny person ... who ... offers to diagnose or professes to diagnose ... any of the lesions or diseases of the human oral cavity, teeth, gums, maxillary or mandibular structures" is practicing dentistry and must be licensed. Ind.Code Secs. 25-14-1-1, 25-14-1-23 (1982). The IFD asserts that the unlicensed lay personnel employed by group dental health care insurers to review claims engage in the unlawful practice of dentistry when they examine and "diagnose" dental x-rays for purposes of benefit determination. Thus, the IFD concludes that the submission of dental x-rays to unlicensed lay personnel for diagnostic procedures is aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice of dentistry in violation of Indiana state law. 4

According to the findings of fact of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), as adopted by the Commission, there were 3,100 licensed dentists practicing within the State of Indiana in 1974 and 85-88 percent of those dentists belonged to the Indiana Dental Association ("IDA"). The IDA had an official "Manual on Group Funded Dental Care Programs" ("Manual") recommending the procedures that member dentists follow when treating patients covered by a group dental health care insurance plan. The Manual included a section entitled "I.D.A. Policy Regarding Group Dental Care," providing in pertinent part:

"The method of authorization of dental health care under pre-payment plans should be limited to determining the eligibility of the patient and extent of liability of the plan and should prevent any interference with the dentist-patient relationship or with the judgment and decision of the dentist. The plan must not require the dentist to submit radiographs (x-rays) to a third party."

Indiana Federation of Dentists, 101 F.T.C. at 83 (emphasis original) (footnote omitted). The Manual also contained a form letter, entitled "To All My Patients," that provided in pertinent part:

"Dental radiographs (x-rays) are a part of the dentist's legal health records. They are available for valid review by a qualified representative(s) of your insurance company in this office. Radiographs (x-rays) will not be submitted to third parties for their use in determination of benefits (e.g., least expensive adequate procedure, or optional course of treatment) because a determination of an adequate treatment plan can only be made after a knowledge of the following:

A. Complete patient evaluation.

B. Radiographs.

C. Additional diagnostic procedures as required."

Id. at 83, 162-63. In addition to formulating these guidelines for member dentists, the IDA undertook a pledge project in 1973 to obtain written pledges from their members that they would not participate in group funded dental health care plans unless such plans were previously approved by the IDA. It was the IDA's position that "proper dental treatment is predicated on a diagnosis from many types of examination and not radiographs alone." Id. at 90. According to the IDA statistics, approximately 85 percent of the member dentists agreed to support the IDA policy.

The ALJ found that the "smaller insurers had generally gone along with the Indiana dentists' demands" to not require the submission of dental x-rays alone, but to review all diagnostic aids in determining a proper course of dental treatment. The ALJ further found that in July 1971, Aetna Life and Casualty Insurance Co. ("Aetna") insisted that Indiana dentists submit copies of dental x-rays for patients covered under Aetna's group dental plan with International Harvester and the United Auto Workers. Only a "small percentage of dentists" in the Allen County-Fort Wayne, Indiana area complied with Aetna's directive. By mid-1972, some 600 unpaid dental claims had accumulated and "[i]t was the consensus of Harvester, U.A.W. and Aetna that many of these 600 claims were probably meritorious and that they had to be taken care of in some way." Id. at 98, 172. Accordingly, Aetna selected and retained a dentist and "arranged for him to go to the office of each dentist concerned and work with the relevant x-rays and any other diagnostic aids in the dentist's files." Id. The ALJ found that "[t]his modus operandi, of course, came quite close to meeting IDA's unrealistic terms for insurer access to x-rays: 'qualified' personnel to come to the treating dentist's office." Id. Similarly, in October 1974, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, ("Connecticut General") required that Indiana dentists submit copies of dental x-rays for patients covered under Connecticut General's group dental plan with General Motors and the United Auto Workers. The IDA member dentists objected to Connecticut General's policy and eventually the parties entered into a "gentlemen's agreement" whereby the IDA member dentists were merely asked to submit copies of a patient's dental x-rays but were not required to do so. Nonetheless, the ALJ found that by the spring of 1976, Connecticut General was receiving about 70 percent of its needed x-rays except in the Madison County-Anderson, Indiana area where only "about 2 to 4 out of 40 dentists--would ever submit x-rays when requested" by Connecticut General. Id. at 109, 172.

In August 1976, the petitioner, IFD, was formed as a separate and distinct association of Indiana dentists. 5 The IFD's constitution and by-laws provided that:

"The Indiana Federation shall represent, protect, maintain, and advance, through activities accomplished by relevant techniques which may lawfully be engaged in by a labor organization, the interests of the dentists within its jurisdiction. The objectives of this Federation shall include, but not be limited to the following:

a.) To represent dentists in all socio-economic matters, negotiations and grievances with employers, third, and fourth parties or any group that is involved in financing or delivery of dental care. The ultimate purpose being to promote better patient care and to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Marrese v. Interqual, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • November 7, 1984
    ... ... that his clinical privileges at Deaconess Hospital, in Evansville, Indiana, be revoked, is exempt from the Federal antitrust laws under the doctrine ... 2326, 2333, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979)). See also Indiana Federation of Dentists v. F.T.C., 745 F.2d 1124 at 1140 (1984); R. Bork, The ... ...
  • St. Joseph's Hosp. v. HOSP. AUTHORITY OF AMERICA
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • July 18, 1985
    ... ... other competitors to protect itself from non-group competitors." Indiana Federation of Dentists v. F.T.C., 745 F.2d 1124, 1136 (7th Cir.1984), ... ...
  • UNR Industries, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • November 30, 1984
    ... ... v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir.1984); cf. Indiana Federation of Dentists v. FTC, 745 F.2d 1124 at 1131 n. 8 (7th Cir.1984) ... ...
  • Moore v. Boating Industry Associations, s. 83-2148
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • February 11, 1985
    ... ... it does not entirely exclude its victims from the market."); Indiana Federation of Dentists v. FTC, 745 F.2d 1124, 1137 (7th Cir.1984) (no per ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Chapter VI. The Reasonableness of Collateral Restraints
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Joint Ventures: Antitrust Analysis of Collaborations Among Competitors
    • January 1, 2006
    ...rule of reason or “quick look” analysis in evaluating examine the dentists’ power in that market. See Indiana Fed’n. of Dentists v. FTC, 745 F.2d 1124, 1140-44 (7th Cir. 1984). 60 476 U.S. at 459. 61 Id. at 455. 62 Id. at 457. 63 Id. at 459. 64 Id. at 461-62. 65 526 U.S. 756 (1999). The Rea......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2022
    ...Entm’t Grp. v. NBA, 853 F. Supp. 333 (C.D. Cal. 1994), 75 TABLE OF CASES 1797 Indiana Fed’n of Dentists, 101 F.T.C. 57 (1983), vacated, 745 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 1984), rev ’ d, 476 U.S. 447 (1986), 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 65–66, 68–69, 74, 76, 77, 83, 111, 113, 114, 116, 128, 227, 475, 508–509, ......
  • Restraints of Trade
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume I
    • February 2, 2022
    ...v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 692 (1978)). 382. 476 U.S. 447 (1986). 383. Indiana Fed’n of Dentists, 101 F.T.C. 57 (1983), vacated, 745 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 1984), rev’d , 476 U.S. 447 (1986). 384. Indiana Fed’n of Dentists v. FTC, 745 F.2d 1124, 1140-44 (7th Cir. 1984), rev’d , 476 U.S. 4......
  • The tempting of antitrust: Robert Bork and the goals of antitrust policy
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Journal No. 79-3, December 2014
    • December 1, 2014
    ...example is Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Jefferson Parish , which relies on Bork for the proposition that price discrimination 745 F.2d 1124, 1140 (7th Cir. 1984); In re Indus. Gas Antitrust Litig., 681 F.2d 514, 520 (7th Cir. 1982); Laumann v. Nat’l Hockey League, 907 F. Supp. 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT