Reazin v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1823,87-1823 |
| Citation | 899 F.2d 951 |
| Parties | , 1990-1 Trade Cases 68,970 Walter L. REAZIN, M.D.; HCA Health Services of Kansas, Inc., d/b/a Wesley Medical Center; Health Care Plus, Inc.; and New Century Life Insurance Co., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS, INC., Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant, and HMO Kansas, Inc., Additional Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Additional Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Daniel R. Shulman, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Minneapolis, Minn. (Gary D. McCallister, Davis, Wright, Unrein, Hummer & McCallister, Topeka, Kan., and Joseph M. Alioto, Alioto & Alioto, San Francisco, Cal., with him on the briefs), for appellants.
Robert H. Rawson, Jr., Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, Ohio (Robert M. Duncan, Joe Sims, and Joseph F. Winterscheid, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, Ohio, and Donald R. Newkirk, Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, Wichita, Kan., with him on the briefs), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. ("Blue Cross") appeals an adverse verdict entered in an antitrust and state law tortious interference case. Both the antitrust and state law claims arose out of the same set of facts.
The parties have attempted to make this case very complex, but the antitrust issues are relatively straightforward. Plaintiffs' theory was that Blue Cross, alarmed by a perceived competitive threat from Hospital Corporation of America ("HCA") through its acquisitions of a major Wichita hospital now called HCA Health Services of Kansas, Inc. d/b/a Wesley Medical Center ("Wesley"), Health Care Plus, Inc. ("HCP"), and New Century Life Insurance Co. ("New Century"), determined to "hurt" Wesley and thereby send a message to other hospitals not to do business with entities Blue Cross believed were competitors. It did this by agreeing with Wesley's competitors, St. Joseph Hospital and St. Francis Hospital ("the Saints"), to terminate Wesley's contracting provider agreement and to reduce the maximum allowable payments it would make to the Saints, thereby increasing Wesley's costs of doing Given our standard of review, we uphold the jury's verdict because we find sufficient evidence supports it. In so holding, we reach the following specific conclusions: (1) Wesley has standing to assert its antitrust claims and proved an antitrust injury; (2) Blue Cross entered into an agreement with the Saints which restrained trade in the market of health care financing; (3) Blue Cross had market and monopoly power and it willfully maintained its monopoly power; (4) Wesley adequately proved its damages; (5) the court properly instructed the jury on the various antitrust claims involved; (6) the court properly instructed the jury on plaintiffs' state law claims and sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict on those claims; (7) Blue Cross suffered no prejudice from the court's supplemental "Allen " charges or any communications with the jury during deliberations; (8) the court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim; and (9) the award of attorneys' fees and costs is affirmed in all respects except we remand for a recalculation of the expert witness fees awarded.
business and causing a shift of Blue Cross patients from Wesley to the Saints. The threatened termination of Wesley because of its affiliation with a Blue Cross competitor made other hospitals less willing to affiliate with, or enter into relationships with, Blue Cross competitors. The result was that Kansas health care consumers were restricted in their access to and benefits from health care financing arrangements involving entities other than Blue Cross, and were deprived of the benefits of competition in that arena. The jury agreed with plaintiffs and found multiple antitrust violations by Blue Cross.
Plaintiffs Walter L. Reazin, M.D., Wesley, HCP, and New Century brought this antitrust action against Blue Cross. Plaintiffs alleged violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1 and 2, as well as violations of state law, arising out of Blue Cross' threatened termination of its contracting provider agreement with Wesley. They sought damages and other relief. 1 Blue Cross and its wholly-owned subsidiary, HMO Kansas, Inc. ("HMOK"), counterclaimed against plaintiffs as well as HCA, alleging: that HCA's acquisitions of Wesley, HCP, and New Century violated the antitrust laws; that HMOK's failure in Wichita was the result of an unlawful boycott and concerted refusal to deal or an unreasonable restraint of trade; that plaintiffs had monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and/or conspired to monopolize the market for health care financing and health care services; and, asserting tortious interference with prospective advantage, in violation of Kansas law. They sought damages and other relief.
Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the district court separated the trials of the complaint and the counterclaim. After a six-week jury trial on plaintiffs' complaint, and four weeks of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Wesley, finding that Blue Cross had violated section 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a conspiratorial restraint of trade, had violated section 2 by monopolizing the relevant market, and had tortiously interfered with Wesley's present and prospective business relations in violation of Kansas law. It awarded Wesley $1,542,980 in actual damages for the antitrust violations and $1.00 in actual nominal damages and $750,000 in punitive damages for the tortious interference Numerous post-trial motions followed. Ultimately, in a 124-page written opinion, the district court denied Blue Cross' motions to set aside the verdict and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, for a directed verdict, and for judgment n.o.v. or for a new trial. Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc., 663 F.Supp. 1360 (D.Kan.1987) ("Reazin II "). 3 It also denied plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief against Blue Cross under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 26. After trebling the actual damages awarded Wesley, the court entered judgment in the amount of $5,378,941.00, plus interest. It awarded plaintiffs their requested sum of $2,176,983.75 in attorney's fees, and a total of $246,844.99 in other fees and costs. Finally, it granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim. Blue Cross appeals essentially all of the district court's rulings, and is joined by HMOK with respect to the grant of summary judgment on the counterclaim.
claim. 2
FACTS
The complex facts and history of this case have been thoroughly recounted in the two district court opinions. See Reazin I, 635 F.Supp. 1287, and Reazin II, 663 F.Supp. 1360. We recite here only the basic undisputed facts relevant to this appeal.
Blue Cross, a non-profit company formed in 1983 by combining Blue Cross of Kansas, Inc. and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., is the largest private health care financing organization in Kansas. 4 It is chartered under a special enabling act. It is approximately fifteen times bigger than the next largest private health care financing organization, in terms of percent of earned health insurance premiums. Pl.'s Ex. 508K, Addendum to Answer Brief of Appellees Vol. I.
Reazin II, 663 F.Supp. at 1372 (). Blue Cross is required under its enabling legislation to pursue cost containment as its primary goal.
Wesley is the largest, and "by far the strongest," hospital in Wichita. Reazin I, 635 F.Supp. at 1297. It is a major teaching hospital, as well as a provider of clinical services, medical research, and outreach care programs. There was testimony that Wesley is considered one of the premier hospitals in Kansas and has historically been a low-cost provider of quality health care. Wesley's competitors in Wichita are the Saints and Riverside Hospital.
HCP is a health maintenance organization ("HMO") founded in 1981, which provides private health care financing to businesses and individuals in Kansas, including Sedgwick County and Wichita. 5
HCA, based in Nashville, Tennessee, "through its subsidiary corporations, is engaged in the business of providing health care services, private health care financing and hospital management services." Reazin II, 663 F.Supp. at 1373. In terms of the number of hospitals owned or managed, HCA is the largest for-profit hospital company in the United States. However, Dr. Thomas Frist, the chairman and chief executive officer of HCA, testified that HCA "represent[s] less than three percent ... of the hospital sector in this country [and] ... close to fifty percent of [HCA's] revenues come through third-party insurers, of which Blue Cross is a large percentage." R. Vol. 32 at 3187-88.
New Century is a California corporation with its principal executive offices in Nashville. Its activities include the provision of private health care financing. In June 1983, it received its certificate of authority to do business in Kansas. 6
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., Civ. A. No. 90-F-864.
...United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1703-04, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966); Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc., 899 F.2d 951, 973 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 3241, 111 L.Ed.2d 752 (1990); Board of Regents v. National Collegiate Athletic......
-
Legal Principles Defining the Scope of the Federal Antitrust Exemption for Insurance
... ... In Uniforce ... Temporary Personnel, Inc. v. National Council on Compensation ... , Group Life & Health, known as Blue ... Shield of Texas, offered health ... Anderson Marketing, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield United ... of Wisconsin ... However, ... in Reazin v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas ... ...
-
Meijer, Inc. v. Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
...79 F.3d 182, 197 (1st Cir.1996) ("the question of market definition is one of fact for the jury"); Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., 899 F.2d 951, 975 (10th Cir.1990) ("[m]arket definition is a question of 3. Balancing Procompetitive Benefits with Anticompetitive Effects T......
-
Elliott Industries Ltd. Part. v. Bp America Prod.
...laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendant's acts unlawful." Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 899 F.2d 951, 962 n. 15 (10th Cir.1990) (quotation omitted). The Sherman Act was designed to protect market participants from anticompetitive beha......
-
Application of Antitrust Principles to Business Tort Claims
...Allgas, Inc., 284 F.3d 1237, 1256-57 (11th Cir. 2002); Reazin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 663 F. Supp. 1360, 1492 (D. Kan. 1987), aff’d , 899 F.2d 951 (10th Cir. 1990). 13. See Bailey, 284 F.3d at 1257; International Sales & Serv., 262 F.3d at 1159; Navellier, 262 F.3d at 937-38; Waldrep Bro......
-
Table of Cases
...Antitrust Handbook R R.S.E., Inc. v. Pa. Supply, 523 F. Supp. 954 (M.D. Pa. 1981), 249 Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., 899 F.2d 951 (10th Cir. 1990), 158 Relafen Antitrust Litig., In re , 346 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Mass. 2004), 306, 309 Relafen Antitrust Litig., In re , 221 F.R.D. ......
-
Basic Antitrust Concepts and Principles
...to 200, See Eastman 201. requires... something greater than market power under § 1.”); Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., 899 F.2d 951, 967 (10th Cir, 1990) (noting that market power and monopoly power differ only in degree). Often the terms “market power” and “monopoly power” are ......
-
Statutory Exemptions for Regulated Industries
...48. Reazin v. Blue Cross Blue & Shield of Kansas, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 1360, 1402-03 (D. Kan. 1987), aff’d in part & remanded in part , 899 F.2d 951 (10th Cir. 1990) (“The market for private health care financing, embracing defendant's HMO, PPO and TPA activities, is not an ‘insurance’ market......