Cooper v. Amster, Civ. A. No. 85-6861.
| Decision Date | 07 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 85-6861. |
| Citation | 645 F. Supp. 46 |
| Parties | Harry A. COOPER, D.O., Plaintiff, v. Bernard J. AMSTER, D.O., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
David Pennington, Gregory J. Pavlovitz, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Andrew F. Napoli, Philadelphia, Pa., for Metropolitan Hosp.
Andrew D. Bershad, Philadelphia, Pa., for Drs. Stepanuk and Newman.
Brian M. Peters, Philadelphia, Pa., for Delaware Valley Hosp. and Dr. Amster.
Plaintiff is a doctor. He brings this antitrust action against two hospitals and three other doctors alleging that because the hospitals do not refer emergency patients to him, the defendants have violated section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state laws.1 In no other way is plaintiff precluded from practicing medicine or using the hospitals' facilities. Presently before me is the motion of one of the hospitals, Metropolitan Hospital-Parkview Division, and two of its staff members, to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The motion must be granted on both grounds.
In the first place, plaintiff's antitrust claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because they are clearly frivolous and, in any event, lack ripeness. This action is frivolous because plaintiff is not being precluded from doing anything by any of the defendants. He may find his own patients, accept patients from anyone who will refer them, admit patients to the hospital, treat them in the emergency room, and use any of the hospital's facilities. The sole basis of his suit is that the hospital refers patients to other doctors, but does not refer patients to him. This is in keeping with the hospital's policy that it will not refer patients to a doctor who has been on its staff for less than five years unless the doctor is associated with other qualified doctors. Plaintiff was not singled out for this treatment nor has he pointed to anything which suggests that this is not a perfectly legitimate and reasonable policy. There is nothing in the law that requires the hospital to be his bird dog just because it is the bird dog for other doctors who have been associated with it for a longer period of time. Plaintiff may wish that the hospital would refer patients to him, but the Sherman Act does not require it to do so.
Additionally, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ginzburg v. Memorial Healthcare Systems, Inc.
...in the county had any anticompetitive impact on the quality, quantity or price of services provided at that hospital); Cooper v. Amster, 645 F.Supp. 46, 47 (E.D.Pa.1986) (dismissing case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff could not prove that he suffered any injur......
-
Johnson v. Greater Southeast Community Hosp. Corp.
...plaintiff has commenced a suit in federal court prior to completion of a hospital's internal peer review procedures. In Cooper v. Amster, 645 F.Supp. 46 (E.D.Pa.1986), aff'd, 845 F.2d 1010 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 852, 109 S.Ct. 138, 102 L.Ed.2d 110 (1988), a physician claimed tha......
-
Cooper v. Delaware Valley Medical Center
...ripe for adjudication, because appellant had not exhausted his remedies within the DVMC administrative appeal process. Cooper v. Amster, 645 F.Supp. 46 (E.D.Pa.1986). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in an unreported Memorandum In February 1986, appellee filed a saving action in ......
- United States v. Conn