Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY: Baer discusses Antitrust Division stance towards holders of standards-essential patents
    • ADVERTISING NEWS: FTC posts agenda for homeopathic product workshop
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: EC Commissioner Vestager discusses link between competition enforcement and intellectual property
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: FIFA price fixed World Cup tickets, fans allege
    • ANTITRUST—5th Cir.: Physician fails to show antitrust injury in claims against local hospital
    • ANTITRUST—9th Cir.: FBI recordings from investigation in optical disk drive price fixing suit discoverable
    • ANTITRUST—D. P.R.: Claims against workers compensation fund over restrictions on chiropractors proceed
    • ANTITRUST—S.D. N.Y.: Antitrust counterclaims against pharmaceutical companies survive dismissal
    • ANTITRUST—W.D. La.: Nursing board collusion suit transferred to Baton Rouge
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—M.D. Tenn.: Tennessee sales rep law did not apply to pharmacy group purchasing agreement
    • LAW FIRM NEWS: Paul Hastings adds James Koenig to Privacy team
    • PRIVACY—M.D.N.C.: Class certification granted in TCPA suit against Dish Network
    • PRIVACY—N.D. Cal.: Operator of secret sharing app Whisper evades TCPA claims
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES— N.D. Cal.: Consumers’ fraud-related claims involving HP wireless printers fail to connect with court
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—D. N.J.: Ford escapes liability for claims based on Mustang hood corrosion
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—5th Cir.: Physician fails to show antitrust injury in claims against local hospital, (Sep 11, 2015)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. | Matthews, Lawson & Johnson, P.L.L.C.
    Organizations Mentioned:Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP | Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P.

    By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

    A neurosurgeon failed to allege sufficient facts to establish an adverse effect on competition in his action against a local hospital for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive practices, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled. Thus, the d ...

    By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

    A neurosurgeon failed to allege sufficient facts to establish an adverse effect on competition in his action against a local hospital for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive practices, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled. Thus, the district court’s dismissal of the complaint was affirmed (Pisharodi v. Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P., September 10, 2015, Per Curiam).

    Dr. Madhavan Pisharodi is a neurosurgeon in Brownsville, Texas, In January 2014, Dr. Pisharodi sued Columbia Valley Healthcare System, operator of Valley Regional Medical Center, alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The district court granted Columbia Valley’s motion to dismiss and Pisharodi appealed.

    The district court did not err in determining that the complaint insufficiently alleged antitrust injury, the appellate court found. To state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s practice had an adverse effect on competition. In the appellate court’s view, the plaintiff’s allegations did not show any adverse effect on competition. He presented no facts to support his claim that Columbia Valley’s actions increased the price or decreased the supply of neurological services in Cameron County, Texas.

    Additionally, the complaint’s allegations tended to show that there was no adverse effect on competition. Pisharodi alleged that he owns part of competing hospital in the area where he continues to perform neurological procedures. He claimed that his fees were lower than his competitors because he uses less expensive implants. Given only those facts, an adverse change in the local price or supply of neurological services could not be reasonably inferred, the appellate court concluded.

    The case is No. 15-40206.

    Attorneys: Sartaj Singh Bal (Matthews, Lawson & Johnson, P.L.L.C.) for Madhavan Pisharodi. James Robert Wetwiska (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.) for Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P.

    Companies: Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P.

    Cases: Antitrust LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use