Weiss v. York Hosp.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1982
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 80-0134.
• Parties: Malcolm WEISS, Plaintiff, v. YORK HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

548 F. Supp. 1048

Malcolm WEISS, Plaintiff, v. YORK HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 80-0134.

United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

September 30, 1982.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Arnold Levin, Michael D. Fishbein, Philadelphia, Pa., Lewis H. Markowitz, Marc G. Tarlow, York, Pa., for plaintiff.

Stuart H. Savett, David H. Weinstein, Philadelphia, Pa., Robert J. Brown, York, Pa., for defendants.

OPINION

MUIR, District Judge.

I. Introduction.

Plaintiff Malcolm Weiss, individually and on behalf of the class of all osteopathic physicians practicing in the York Medical Service Area filed this action for injunctive relief and monetary damages under the federal antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, 15, 26, as well as under state law on February 6, 1980. An amended complaint was filed on June 2, 1982 in which Weiss named as Defendants the York Hospital, the York Hospital Medical and Dental Staff, and individual defendants Gary Ardison, M.D., Thomas L. Bauer, M.D., Ivan L. Butler, M.D., S. W. Deisher, M.D., Jack A. Kline, M.D., Lois Kushner, M.D., S. Philip Laucks, M.D., Harold H. MacDougall, M.D., Iain L. MacKenzie, M.D., and John P. Whiteley, M.D. (sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Defendants").

On May 4 and 5, 1981, this Court held a hearing with respect to Weiss's motion for class action certification. Thereafter, on May 28, 1981, this Court granted Weiss's motion for class certification and the Court certified the class to consist of all osteopathic physicians practicing medicine within the York Medical Service Area (hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff Class").

After several delays, caused in part by petitions to the Court of Appeals for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition filed by the Defendants and certain non-party physicians from whom Plaintiff Weiss and the Plaintiff Class (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiffs") sought discovery, e.g. DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114 (3d Cir. 1982), the liability phase of this trial was ultimately scheduled for trial on the Court's August, 1982 Harrisburg-Lewisburg list for trial. On August 4, 1982, the jury in this case was selected at the United States Courthouse in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to a request of all parties and for the convenience of the parties, witnesses and counsel, the Court agreed to hold the trial of this case in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

The trial of this action commenced on August 11, 1982. On September 1, 1982, a 12-member jury returned unanimous answers to 40 special verdict questions. Thereafter, the Defendants requested the opportunity to present additional evidence to the Court, sitting without a jury, on the question of whether equitable relief should issue under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26. On September 14, 1982, this Court held a hearing with respect to the issue of equitable relief. Following are the Court's findings of fact, discussion, conclusions of law, and order regarding the request of Plaintiff Weiss and the Plaintiff Class for equitable relief.

II. Findings of Fact.

1. The Defendants engaged in business activities in interstate commerce (Special Verdict Question No. 1) (hereinafter "S.V. ___").

2. The Defendants' conduct concerning Plaintiff Weiss and the Plaintiff class occurred in interstate commerce (S.V. 2).

3. The Defendants' conduct in general had a "not insubstantial" effect on interstate commerce (S.V. 3).

4. The Defendants' conduct concerning Plaintiff Weiss and the Plaintiff class had a "not insubstantial" effect on interstate commerce (S.V. 4).

5. Plaintiff Weiss would have been granted staff privileges at the York Hospital but for the fact that he was an osteopathic physician rather than an allopathic physician (S.V. 5).

6. The procedures utilized by the Defendants in denying Plaintiff Weiss's application for staff privileges at the York Hospital were unfair taken as a whole (S.V. 6).

7. At least one Defendant conspired with another person or entity to deny Plaintiff Weiss staff privileges at the York Hospital because Weiss was an osteopathic physician but that conspiracy did not constitute an unreasonable restraint upon interstate commerce (S.V. 7, 8).

8. The York Hospital Medical and Dental Staff conspired with another person or entity to deny or impede reasonable, fair, equal, and full access to staff privileges at the York Hospital by osteopathic physicians other than Plaintiff Weiss (S.V. 11, 13).

9. The conspiracy referred to in the previous paragraph constituted an unreasonable restraint upon interstate commerce and caused injury to members of the Plaintiff Class other than plaintiff Weiss in their businesses and property (S.V. 11.5, 12).

10. A relevant product market for the provision of inpatient hospital health care services supplied by hospitals and their medical staffs has been established (S.V. 14).

11. The York Medical Service Area is the relevant geographic market for the provision of inpatient hospital health care services provided by the Defendants (S.V. 15).

12. The York Hospital had the power to control prices in and exclude competitors from the relevant market (S.V. 16, 17, 18, 19).

13. The York Hospital Medical and Dental Staff had the power to control prices in the relevant market (S.V. 16, 17).

14. The York Hospital Medical and Dental Staff had no power to exclude competitors from the relevant market (S.V. 18, 19).

15. No other Defendant had the power either to control prices in or exclude competitors from the relevant market (S.V. 16, 17, 18, 19).

16. The York Hospital unreasonably exercised the power either to control prices in or exclude competitors from the relevant market to exclude Plaintiff Weiss from York Hospital Staff privileges and thereby caused injury to Plaintiff Weiss in his business or property (S.V. 20, 21, 22).

17. The York Hospital unreasonably exercised the power either to control prices in or exclude competitors from the relevant geographic market to exclude osteopathic physicians from the York Hospital Staff and thereby caused injury to members of the Plaintiff Class, other than Plaintiff Weiss, in their businesses or property (S.V. 23, 24, 25).

18. The York Hospital had the specific intent and purpose to acquire the power to control prices in or to exclude competitors from the relevant market (S.V. 26, 27).

19. No other Defendant had the intent or purpose referred to in the preceding paragraph (S.V. 26, 27).

20. The York Hospital did acts directed to accomplishing a monopoly in the relevant market (S.V. 28, 29).

21. No other Defendant did such acts referred to in the preceding paragraph (S.V. 28, 29).

22. The York Hospital had a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in the relevant product and geographic markets (S.V. 30, 31).

23. The conduct of the York Hospital referred to in the preceding paragraph caused injury to Plaintiff Weiss and members of the Plaintiff Class in their businesses or property (S.V. 32, 33).

24. No other Defendant had a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in the relevant market (S.V. 30, 31).

25. The York Hospital, Thomas L. Bauer, M.D., Ivan L. Butler, M.D., S. W. Deisher, M.D., and Lois Kushner, M.D. conspired with other persons or entities to obtain the power to control prices and exclude competitors from the relevant market (S.V. 34, 35, 36).

26. Plaintiff Weiss and members of the Plaintiff class were injured in their businesses or property as a result of the conspiracy referred to in the preceding paragraph (S.V. 37, 38).

27. No other Defendant conspired to obtain the power either to control prices in or exclude competitors from the relevant market (S.V. 34, 35, 36).

28. The York Hospital, Thomas L. Bauer, M.D., Ivan L. Butler, M.D., S. W. Deisher, and Lois Kushner, M.D. intentionally interferred, without proper cause, with Plaintiff Weiss's contracts with other persons thereby substantially causing injury to Plaintiff Weiss (S.V. 39, 40, 41).

29. The denial of hospital staff privileges to a physician or the revocation of such privileges is a serious adverse professional event which is likely to besmirch the professional reputation of such a physician.

30. The practices of the York Hospital, the York Hospital Medical and Dental Staff, Thomas L. Bauer, M.D., Ivan L. Butler, M.D., S. W. Deisher, M.D., and Lois Kushner, M.D. (hereinafter "these Defendants") which discriminated against osteopathic physicians threaten to result in the exclusion of osteopathic physicians in the York Medical Service Area from access to the services and facilities provided by York Hospital.

31. Discrimination by these Defendants against osteopathic physicians could reasonably be anticipated to cause osteopathic physicians to refrain from applying for staff privileges at the York Hospital.

32. Without staff privileges, a physician cannot admit, effectively follow, or treat patients at the York Hospital.

33. York Hospital has a number of unique services and facilities not available to patients and physicians at any other hospital within the York Medical Service Area.

34. As a result of York Hospital's possession of unique services and facilities, osteopathic physicians lacking staff privileges at York Hospital have been required, if they desired to have their patients treated locally, to refer their patients to allopathic physicians who are members of the York Hospital Medical and Dental Staff for treatment at York Hospital.

35. If osteopathic physicians were permitted access to the services and facilities of York Hospital by affording them staff privileges, and were permitted to admit, follow, and treat their patients at York Hospital, the osteopathic physicians would be less likely to lose patients to their allopathic competitors.

36. Since 1976, eight osteopathic physicians have applied for York Hospital staff privileges.

37. Of the eight osteopathic physicians who have applied for York Hospital Staff privileges, only...