Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. La.: Dentist’s claims against state board for license revocation fail, (Nov 12, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

A dentist failed to adequately allege antitrust claims against individual members of a state board of dentistry for engaging in a conspiracy to deprive him of a fair hearing in the maintenance and reinstatement of his dental license, the federal district court in New Orleans has decided. Thus, the dentist’s claims were dismissed with prejudice (Schaffer v. Ogden, November 7, 2014, Zainey, J.).

Before entering into private practice in oral and maxillofacial surgery, Randall Schaffer served as resident under Dr. John Kent at the Louisiana State University Dental and Medical Center. During his residency, Schaffer became aware of a defect in an oral prosthesis in which Dr. Kent has a proprietary interest. Subsequently, Schaffer became a witness and consultant in medical malpractice cases involving the device. In 2000, Schaffer’s license was revoked by the Louisiana Board of Dentistry and his three attempts at review and reinstatement were denied.

Schaffer filed suit against Board executive director Barry Ogden, several Board panel members, and Board counsel Brian Begue, alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, among other claims. Schaffer asserted that the defendants conspired to deprive him of his license and acted to protect Dr. Kent, Louisiana State University, and the Louisiana Patient Compensation Fund by revoking his license. The defendants moved for dismissal.

The court determined that Schaffer failed to state sufficient facts to make a plausible claim under either Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act. Schaffer contended that the board members and counsel had met prior to the hearings regarding his license; that his due process rights were violated in those hearings; and that an agreement to engage in the restraint of trade in the dental field should be inferred. However, the court found that, even if a cognizable antitrust injury had been alleged, Schaffer’s conclusory statements were insufficient to state a claim. Moreover, Schaffer did not offer any specificity as to an intent on the part of the Board to monopolize any part of the dental field, the court concluded.

The case is No. 13-6607.

Attorneys: Randall M. Schaffer, pro se. Bruce Arne Cranner (Frilot LLC) for C. Barry Ogden.

Companies: Louisiana Board of Dentistry

Cases: Antitrust LouisianaNews