Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—4th Cir.: Chiropractor unable to show injury in suit against state medical board, (May 17, 2016)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In an action by a chiropractor against the state medical board and its board members for allegedly entering into an agreement to allocate the relevant service market to doctors and to exclude chiropractors in violation of the Sherman Act, the chiropractor failed to show that the medical board’s sanctions against her constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond has held in an unpublished opinion. Thus, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the medical board was affirmed (Petrie v. Virginia Board of Medicine, May 16, 2016, Duncan, A.).

Yvoune Petrie has been a licensed chiropractor in Virginia since 2006. In February 2013, the Virginia Board of Medicine, which regulates all forms of medicine in the state, conducted a formal hearing and determined that Petrie violated various sections of the Virginia Code regulating the practice of medicine. Specifically, Petrie was found to have (1) advertised and promoted her services in a false and misleading manner by holding herself out as a nutritionist and registered dietician without meeting the necessary criteria under state law; and (2) acted beyond the scope of her chiropractic license. Her license was temporarily suspended and a fine was imposed.

Petrie filed suit against the Board and its members for allegedly entering into an agreement to allocate the relevant market for medical services to doctors and to exclude chiropractors, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In December 2014, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Petrie appealed.

The district court properly determined that Petrie failed to show that the Board’s sanctions had any anticompetitive effects on the relevant market. To establish an antitrust violation under the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must show (1) a contract, combination, or conspiracy; (2) that imposed an unreasonable restraint; and (3) caused an injury of the type that antitrust laws were intended to prevent, the court explained.

In this case, Petrie failed to show any anticompetitive effects on the relevant market or that the procompetitive benefits of the Board’s actions were outweighed by anticompetitive effects. According to the court, the antitrust laws were designed to protect competition and the elimination of a single competitor did not prove an anticompetitive effect. Petrie argued that the Board’s sanctions against her were used "as a springboard" to eliminate an entire class of competitors—i.e., chiropractors—for an improper purpose. Petrie, however, presented no evidence that the Board’s order had any broader effects on the medical services market, such as on competition between chiropractors and medical doctors or the imposition of sanctions against other Virginia chiropractors for providing the types of treatment that Petrie was sanctioned for, the court noted.

Because Petrie failed to prove that the Board’s sanctions against her constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Board and individual defendants was proper, the appellate court concluded.

The case is No. 15-1007.

Attorneys: Vincent Mark Amberly (Amberly Law) for Yvoune Kara Petrie. Sarah Oxenham Allen, Office of the Attorney General, for Virginia Board of Medicine.

Companies: Virginia Board of Medicine

Cases: Antitrust StateUnfairTradePractices MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews