New Jersey Chiropractic Soc. v. Radiological Soc. of New Jersey, Chapter of American College of Radiology
| Decision Date | 26 January 1978 |
| Citation | 383 A.2d 1182,156 N.J.Super. 365 |
| Parties | , 1978-1 Trade Cases P 61,894 NEW JERSEY CHIROPRACTIC SOCIETY, a non-profit corporation of the State of New Jersey; Dean A. Collins, D. C., Louis A. Cuccaro, D. C., Edward J. P. Curry, D. C., Neil L. Kenny, D. C., P. A., Brian A. Klappholz, D. C., Albert J. Rose, D. C., Lawrence J. Rosenberg, D. C., P. A.; Antonia Bitetto, Terry A. Bleistein and Christina Della Pietro, individually and as to the First Count only on behalf of a class, Plaintiffs, v. RADIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY, a CHAPTER OF the AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, a non-profit corporation of the State of New Jersey, American College of Radiology, American Medical Association, a corporation of the State of Illinois; Burlington County Memorial Hospital, Southern Ocean County Hospital, John F. Kennedy Medical Center, Dover General Hospital, the Hospital Center at Orange, the Society of the Valley Hospital d/b/a The Valley Hospital; Atlantic City Medical Center, the aforementioned hospitals and medical centers individually and as to the First Count only as representatives of a class; Monmouth Radiologists, P. A., Hackensack Radiology Group, P. A., Associated Radiologists, P. A., James M. Monaghan, M. D., the aforementioned radiologists, radiology group and M. D. individually and as to the First Count only as representatives of a class, Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Edward W. Harker, Union City, for plaintiffs (Platoff, Heftler, Harker & Nashel, Union City, attorneys; Edward W.Harker Howard M. Nashel and Bruce L. Nussman, Union City, on the brief).
Bruce A. Cogan and Arthur R. Schmauder, Newark, for defendant American Medical Assn. (Shanley & Fisher, Newark, attorneys; Arthur R. Schmauder, William H. Brooks, Bruce A. Cogan and Dennis M. Reznick, Newark, on the brief).
H. Neil Broder, Burton L. Eichler, East Orange, and Reuben L. Hedlund, Chicago, Ill., pro haec vice, for defendants Radiological Soc. of N.J., American College of Radiology, Monmouth Radiologists, P.A., Hackensack Radiology Group, P.A., Associated Radiologists, P.A., and James M. Monaghan, M.D. (Brach, Eichler, Rosenberg & Silver, East Orange, attorneys; Burton L. Eichler and H. Neil Broder, East Orange, on the brief).
No appearance for defendant Atlantic City Medical Center (Smith, Stratton, Wise & Heher, Trenton, attorneys).
Robert M. Dangel, Mount Holly, for defendants Burlington County Memorial Hospital and Southern Ocean County Hospital (Haines, Schulze, Wood & Tapper, Mount Holly, attorneys).
Stephen G. Sepaniak, Morristown, for defendant Dover General Hospital (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, Morristown, attorneys).
Susan I. Littman, Morristown, for defendants the Soc. of the Valley Hospital and the Hospital Center at Orange (Riker, Danzig, Scherer & Debovoise, Morristown, attorneys).
Stephen L. Abbott, Perth Amboy, for defendant John F. Kennedy Medical Center (Toolan, Romond, Abbott & Domenichetti, Perth Amboy, attorneys).
This is an action based in part upon alleged violations of the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-1 et seq. 1 Plaintiffs consist of the New Jersey Chiropractic Society, a nonprofit corporation (Society), seven individual chiropractors who allegedly are members of the Society, and three individual persons who allegedly are consumers of the services of the chiropractors (consumers). Defendants include the Radiological Society of New Jersey, a local medical society; the American Medical Association, a national medical society; seven hospitals and three professional corporations, all providing radiological services, and one individual radiologist. Some of defendants are engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery and deal specifically with the science of x-rays of the human body.
Plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that defendants have combined and conspired to monopolize trade and commerce in the delivery of health care services for ailments treatable by both chiropractors and doctors of medicine and surgery, i. e., radiologists. Consumers contend that defendants have impeded their free choice of health care by refusing to provide diagnostic x-rays to consumers referred by chiropractors and to release x-rays to such chiropractors. 2 For the alleged antitrust violations, plaintiffs are seeking both damages and injunctive relief.
The issues now before the court are whether (1) the Society has standing under the New Jersey Antitrust Act, and (2) consumers have standing under this act.
Under the holding of New Jersey Optometric Ass'n v. Hillman-Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc., 144 N.J.Super. 411, 425-426, 365 A.2d 956 (Ch.Div.1976), and for the reasons stated therein, I conclude that the New Jersey Chiropractic Society lacks standing under N.J.S.A. 56:9-12(a) to assert a cognizable antitrust claim. Accordingly, the complaint of the Society as to the antitrust claims is dismissed with prejudice.
The standing of individual consumers to assert an antitrust claim is a novel issue in this State. The New Jersey Antitrust Act requires that its provisions "be construed in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable Federal antitrust statutes." N.J.S.A. 56:9-18; see New Jersey Optometric Ass'n v. Hillman-Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc., supra at 425, 365 A.2d 956; Clairol, Inc. v. Cosmetics Plus, 130 N.J.Super. 81, 94, 325 A.2d 505 (Ch.Div.1974); Kugler v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 120 N.J.Super. 216, 237-238, 293 A.2d 682 (Ch.Div.1972). However, there is not a uniform rule of law regarding standing under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 15 (1970) the federal antitrust statute comparable to N.J.S.A. 56:9-10, 12. See Comment, "Private Plaintiff's Standing under Clayton Act Section 4: Clothing the Naked Emperor," 7 Seton Hall L.Rev. 588, 588, 609-610 (1976). This fact leaves this court with considerable latitude in interpreting its own state statute so long as the decisions of this State are as uniform as practicable. See N.J.S.A. 56:9-18.
In New Jersey Optometric Ass'n v. Hillman-Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc., supra, the only prior decision in this State on antitrust standing, the court held that the New Jersey Antitrust Act "expressly requires an injury to business or property of the plaintiff" in order that such plaintiff be a proper party to bring the antitrust action. Id. 144 N.J.Super. at 425-426, 365 A.2d 956 (at 965). The Hillman-Kohan decision was limited to the question of standing of a nonprofit corporation which neither did business nor had any property right that could have been injured by an antitrust violation. Id. at 426, 365 A.2d 956.
In this case consumers claim that they are required to make unnecessary expenditures to engage the services of a doctor of medicine to take x-rays, as a result of the alleged conspiracy of defendants to monopolize trade in this area of health care. Plaintiffs are alleging an injury to their "property," rather than to any "business." Both the federal and state statutes use the words "business or property" in the disjunctive. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 15 (1970); N.J.S.A. 56:9-10, 12. In its interpretation of the federal ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McDaniel
... ... 383 A.2d 1174 ... STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, ... Peter McDANIEL, Jr., ... ...
-
Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc.
...there is a causal link between such prohibited methods or acts and the injury suffered); New Jersey Chiropractic Society v. Radiological Society, 156 N.J.Super. 365, 383 A.2d 1182 (Ct.Ch.Div.1978) (consumers permitted to sue for violation of New Jersey Antitrust Act where they allege that d......
-
Colo. Chiropractic Council v. Porter Memorial Hosp.
...Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 541-43, 103 S.Ct. 897, 910-911, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983); New Jersey Chiropractic Soc'y v. Radiological Soc'y, 156 N.J.Super. 365, 383 A.2d 1182, 1184 (Ch.Div.1978). The Council by its very nature could not apply for privileges at any of the defendant hospi......
-
Van Natta Mechanical Corp. v. Di Staulo
...Comet Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. E.A. Cowen Constr., Inc., 609 F.2d at 406. See New Jersey Chiropractic Soc'y v. Radiological Soc'y of New Jersey, 156 N.J.Super. 365, 371, 383 A.2d 1182 (Ch. Div.1978) (holding that consumers had standing to sue in State antitrust cases when they "suffe......
-
New Jersey. Practice Text
...Eyeglasses, Inc., 388 A.2d 1299, 1305 (N.J. Super. Ct. App Div. 1978); N.J. Chiropractic Soc’y v. Radiological Soc’y of N.J., 383 A.2d 1182 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1978); see also Chick’s Auto Body v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 401 A.2d 722 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1979); cf. Feiler......
-
Healthcare. Practice Text
...Soriano, 369 N.J. Super. 192 (App. Div. 2004). 139. See, e.g. , New Jersey : New Jersey Chiropractic Soc’y v. Radiological Soc’y of N.J., 383 A.2d 1182 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1978) (chiropractors and consumers of chiropractic services sued radiological society, medical association, hospi......