US v. Carilion Health Service

Decision Date13 February 1989
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 88-0249-R.
Citation707 F. Supp. 840
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CARILION HEALTH SYSTEM and Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

Anthony E. Harris, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

William B. Poff, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, Roanoke, Va., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TURK, Chief Judge.

This antitrust action, brought by the U.S. Justice Department's Antitrust Division to prevent the merger of two hospitals in Roanoke, Virginia, is before the court for entry of judgment. Based on the findings of fact to follow, the court concludes that the government has failed to prove that the planned merger of the defendants would constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade under the antitrust laws and will enter judgment for the defendants.

The government filed this action in May, 1988, and claimed that defendants' planned affiliation would violate Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1982), and Clayton Act § 7, 15 U.S.C. § 18 (1982). The court dismissed the government's Clayton Act claim in September,1 and the remaining claim under Sherman Act § 1 was tried for three weeks to the court sitting with a nine-member advisory jury between December 12, 1988, and January 17, 1989. At trial, the government contended that defendants' combination would eliminate actual and potential competition between the two defendants and would lessen competition generally to provide acute inpatient services in the Roanoke Valley. The government therefore argues that the planned affiliation would constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade, in violation of § 1, and prays the court to enjoin the merger. This court has federal question jurisdiction to hear the government's claim under 15 U.S. C. § 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982).

At the conclusion of the evidence, the court certified three special interrogatories to the advisory jury.2 The jury found the relevant service market for the government's claim to include acute inpatient hospital services and certain outpatient health care services provided by various clinics. The jury also found the relevant geographic market for the case to be "the Roanoke Valley, defined as the cities of Roanoke and Salem, Roanoke County including the Town of Vinton, and adjacent parts of Montgomery, Craig, Floyd, Franklin, Bedford and Botetourt Counties that surround Roanoke County, Virginia." Finally, the jury found that, "considering both anticompetitive and procompetitive effects," the planned affiliation would not "substantially reduce competition" in the relevant market and would not constitute "an unreasonable restraint of trade."

It now becomes the court's duty to "find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon," Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and to enter judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.

Findings of Fact

Defendant Carilion Health System is a non-stock, nonprofit holding company that owns three nonprofit hospitals in Virginia and manages six others. The company also owns a number of for-profit subsidiaries, including a helicopter ambulance service, an eye, ear, nose and throat clinic, a pharmacy, an insurance company and a health club. Carilion's largest facility is Roanoke Memorial Hospitals in Roanoke, a facility licensed by Virginia health planning authorities for 677 acute inpatient beds, of which the hospital staffs and operates 609. Occupancy averages something less than 500 patients. Roanoke Memorial is a teaching affiliate for the University of Virginia Medical School in Charlottesville.

Carilion also owns Bedford County Memorial Hospital in Bedford, a facility licensed for 75 beds, and Radford Community Hospital in Radford, a facility licensed for 160 beds that staffs and operates about 120 beds. In addition, Carilion manages Franklin Memorial Hospital in Rocky Mount, licensed for 60 beds, Giles Memorial Hospital in Pearisburg, licensed for 60 beds, Wythe County Community Hospital in Wythe County and Tazewell Community Hospital in Tazewell County.3

Defendant Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley is a nonstock, non-profit corporation that owns a hospital by the same name in downtown Roanoke. The facility has 400 licensed beds of which 220 are staffed. Occupancy averages about 175 patients. Both Carilion and Community have been organized principally to provide hospital services to the general public, and both provide indigent care to the extent that funds are available. The boards of directors of both institutions are comprised in large part of business leaders from the Roanoke area who have sought to minimize health care costs to employers and patients.

Both Roanoke Memorial and Community draw more than half their patients from the Roanoke metropolitan area, including the cities of Roanoke and Salem and Roanoke County. About 53 percent of Roanoke Memorial's patients come from this area, while Community draws about 74 percent of its patients from there. If defendants' planned affiliation took place, a third facility in the Roanoke area, Lewis-Gale Hospital in Salem, would not be involved in the transaction. Owned by Hospital Corporation of America, Lewis-Gale is licensed for 406 beds, of which it operates about 335. The hospital's average occupancy is about 242. Lewis-Gale receives about 70 percent of its patients from the Roanoke area.4

All three of these hospitals draw substantial numbers of patients from outside the immediate vicinity of Roanoke. Roanoke Memorial draws 27 percent of its patients from an area that includes Alleghany, Bedford, Botetourt, Craig, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Montgomery, Pulaski, Rockbridge and Wythe Counties and the cities of Lynchburg and Radford in Virginia, as well as Greenbriar, Mercer and Monroe Counties in West Virginia. The hospital treats at least 100 patients a year from each of these localities and from each of the following: Amherst, Campbell, Patrick, Smyth and Tazewell Counties and Carroll County together with the City of Galax. Roanoke Memorial receives an average of $5,000 in revenue from each patient. Community draws 18 percent of its patients from an area that includes Alleghany, Bedford, Botetourt, Craig, Floyd, Franklin, Montgomery and Rockbridge Counties and the City of Lynchburg, all in Virginia. Twenty percent of the patients who receive treatment at Lewis-Gale come from an area that includes Bedford, Craig, Botetourt, Floyd, Franklin and Montgomery Counties.

Professionals in the hospital industry distinguish among types of care various facilities provide, based on the sophistication of services they render and the seriousness and complexity of the illnesses they treat. Primary care services involve the prevention, early detection and treatment of disease. Such services include obstetrics, gynecology, internal medicine and general surgery. A hospital that limits itself to providing primary care usually has some diagnostic equipment to do X-rays and laboratory analysis. Secondary care involves more sophisticated treatment and may include cardiology, respiratory care and physical therapy. Equipment and laboratory capabilities are more sophisticated. Tertiary care is designed to arrest disease in process. It usually includes heart surgery and such cancer treatments as chemotherapy and requires still more sophisticated equipment than primary or secondary services do. Research hospitals associated with university medical schools also provide state-of-the-art quaternary level care. See testimony of Karl Miller, administrator of Lewis-Gale Hospital (Dec. 19, 1988).

All three of the hospitals in Roanoke and Salem provide primary, secondary and some types of tertiary care. Roanoke Memorial provides a significantly greater variety of care at this level and thus tends to treat more serious illnesses than the other two hospitals. Community, while offering some tertiary services, provides the least such care of the three hospitals.

Within its licensed capacity, Lewis-Gale has about 160 unfilled beds. While the hospital would need some time and money to again staff the 70 beds that it no longer operates, it could do so and could then take in at least about 100 more patients before its occupancy would be uncomfortably close to capacity. Hospital administrators testified that they are uncomfortable with occupancy above about 85 percent of capacity.

About 20 other hospitals within the geographic area Roanoke Memorial and, to some extent, Community serve provide primary and, in some cases, secondary level services. Besides the hospitals listed above that Carilion owns or manages, these include hospitals in Lynchburg and Galax and in Alleghany, Bedford, Carroll, Giles, Henry, Montgomery, Patrick, Pulaski, Rockbridge and Smyth Counties.

While the record does not contain specific evidence about some of these hospitals, the administrators of three testified at trial: Edgar L. Belcher of Pulaski Community Hospital, Robert D. Fraraccio of Montgomery Regional Hospital, and Walter Parmer of Alleghany Regional Hospital. Pulaski Community is licensed for 153 beds, has 103 staffed and has an average occupancy of 64 patients; Montgomery Regional is licensed for 146 beds, has 103 staffed and has an average occupancy of under 70; Alleghany Regional is licensed for 214 beds, operates 174 and has an average daily census of about 105. Montgomery Regional and Alleghany Regional are both within about an hour's drive of the three Roanoke-hospitals, while Pulaski Community is about 100 minutes away.

Each of these hospitals serves patients from the county where it is located, as well as residents of several surrounding counties. Messrs. Belcher and Parmer testified, and the court finds, that a significant number of patients from the areas those hospitals serve choose to go to the Roanoke hospitals for the same types of lower-level care available in those hospitals. In some cases, patients perceive that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Forsyth v. Humana, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • July 21, 1993
    ...745 F.2d 786, 826 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1060, 105 S.Ct. 1777, 84 L.Ed.2d 836 (1985); United States v. Carilion Health System, 707 F.Supp. 840, 847 (W.D.Va.1989), aff'd, 892 F.2d 1042 (4th Plaintiffs further allege that Boulder City, Community, and St. Rose are not competito......
  • F.T.C. v. University Health, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • May 6, 1991
    ...and the Transformation of the Hospital Industry, 51 Law & Contemp. Probs. 93, 112-13 (Spring 1989). But see United States v. Carilion Health Sys., 707 F.Supp. 840, 841 n. 1 (W.D.Va.), aff'd, 892 F.2d 1042 (4th Cir.1989); Comment, Antitrust Challenges to Nonprofit Hospital Mergers Under Sect......
  • Novak v. Somerset Hosp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • September 30, 2014
    ...the community hospital setting and GS/GI surgical services in the larger facilities like Conemaugh. See, e.g., U.S. v. Carilion Health Sys., 707 F. Supp. 840, 844 (W.D. Va. 1989) (tertiary hospitals competed with community hospitals for primary and secondary care). The question then becomes......
  • U.S. v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, CV 97-3412(ADS).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • October 23, 1997
    ...F.Supp. at 976 (government stipulated that the relevant product market was "acute care inpatient services"); United States v. Carilion Health System, 707 F.Supp. 840, 842 (W.D.Va.), (relevant product market is "acute inpatient hospital services and certain outpatient healthcare services pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Market Definition in Antitrust. Theory and Case Studies
    • December 6, 2012
    ...(1983), 414, 418 United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 168 F. Supp. 576 (S.D.N.Y. 1958), 61, 62 United States v. Carilion Health Sys., 707 F. Supp. 840 (W.D. Va. 1989), 279, 290 United States v. Ciba Geigy Corp., 508 F. Supp. 1118 (D.N.J. 1976), 317 United States v. Conn. Nat’l Bank, 418 ......
  • Chapter II. Mergers
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Telecom Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • January 1, 2013
    ...analysis cost savings that will benefit consumers), aff’d , 121 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1997). Cf . United States v. Carilion Health Sys., 707 F. Supp. 840 (W.D. Va. 1989) (taking cost savings into account), aff’d , 892 F.2d 1042 (4th Cir. 1989). Conversely, where an injunction against a merger ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Telecom Antitrust Handbook. Third Edition
    • December 9, 2019
    ...United States v. BNS Inc., 848 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1988), supplemented , 858 F.2d 456 (1988), 337 United States v. Carilion Health Sys., 707 F. Supp. 840 (W.D. Va. 1989), 298 United States v. Carilion Health Sys., 892 F.2d 1042 (4th Cir. 1989), 298 United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 30......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Mergers and Acquisitions: Understanding the Antitrust Issues, 2d Edition
    • January 1, 2004
    ...474 United States v. Calmar Inc., 612 F. Supp. 1298 (D.N.J. 1985), 75, 107, 112, 157, 462 United States v. Carilion Health System, 707 F. Supp. 840 (W.D. Va.), aff’d mem ., 892 F.2d 1042 (4th Cir. 1989), 7, 62 United States v. Carrols Development Corp., 454 F. Supp. 1215 (N.D.N.Y. 1978), 48......
  • 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