Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Mich.: Ambulance company states valid conspiracy, monopolization claims against licensing authority, (Jul 20, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Allegations that a medical control authority deliberately conspired to ensure that a single ambulance provider would serve the authority’s area and that the authority worked in concert with the single provider to maintain a monopoly, were sufficient to state valid claims under the Sherman Act. The federal district court in Detroit consequently denied the authority’s motion for summary judgment on the Sherman Act claims (STAT Emergency Medical Service, Inc. v. Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority, July 19, 2016, Steeh, G.).

STAT Emergency Medical Service, Inc. is an ambulance company that sued the Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority (SVMCA) for denying STAT’s application to operate in Saginaw County. SVMCA moved for summary judgment on the Sherman Act antitrust claims, among others.

State action immunity. SVMCA first argued that it was immune from antitrust liability because it was acting pursuant to state policy when it limited competition for emergency medical services. The court rejected this argument, noting that Michigan has not adopted a public utility model for ambulance providers and has not authorized SVMCA to suppress competition.

Conspiracy. STAT sufficiently alleged conspiracy under the Sherman Act, the court next decided. In particular, the evidence demonstrated that SVMCA and others acted deliberately, and by agreement, to ensure that SVMCA would only provide medical oversight to one provider—Mobile Medical Response or MMR, a non-profit corporation that was not a party to the case. According to the court, SVMCA’s actions restrained STAT by ensuring that it would not be able to service its clients in the SVMCA area and that none of the users of emergency services in Saginaw or Tuscola Counties would have any choice in selecting an ambulance provider.

Monopolization. Lastly, the court concluded that STAT sufficiently alleged a monopoly claim under the Sherman Act. Although the court found that non-party MMR was the company that enjoyed a monopoly in the market, STAT provided sufficient evidence that SVMCA worked in concert with MMR to create, keep, and maintain a monopoly.

The case is No. 13-CV-14960.

Attorneys: Orlando L. Blanco (Blanco Wilczynski, PLLC) for STAT Emergency Medical Service, Inc. Christian G. Ohanian (Dickinson Wright PLLC) for Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority.

Companies: STAT Emergency Medical Service, Inc.; Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority

Cases: Antitrust MichiganNews