Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D Va.: Experts on chiropractic medicine not relevant to alleged agreement to exclude chiropractors, (Oct 27, 2014)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

The Virginia Board of Medicine and its members were granted a motion in limine to exclude expert witnesses presented by a chiropractor that alleged the defendants engaged in a horizontal agreement that violated the Sherman Act by the federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia (Petri v. Virginia Board of Medicine, October 23, 2014, Hilton, C.).

The Virginia Board of Medicine and its members were sued by a chiropractor for allegedly entering into an agreement to allocate the relevant service market to doctors and exclude chiropractors in violation of the Sherman Act. The chiropractor also alleged intentional interference with existing contracts, prospective contracts, and prospective economic advantage in violation of state law. Previously, the Board had found the chiropractor to be in violation of various Virginia laws regulating the practice of medicine, specifically for falsely advertising that she was a nutritionist able to “reverse” Type 2 diabetes and able to treat thyroid and metabolic disorders.

The Virginia Board of Medicine and the individual defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the chiropractor’s two witnesses. One expert’s report focused on the relationship between conventional medicine and chiropractic practice, which has allegedly included attempts by conventional medicine to suppress chiropractors. The other report focused on the broad scope of chiropractic practice, the training required to become a chiropractor, and the treatments provided by chiropractors.

Expert witnesses may testify in the form of an opinion if the expert’s knowledge and experience will help the fact finder understand the evidence or determine facts at issue. The court must determine whether the testimony is based on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the case. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make any material fact more or less probable.

The expert reports submitted by the chiropractor’s expert witnesses were not relevant to determining any facts in the case at hand, according to the court. The Sherman Act claims were based on an alleged horizontal agreement to allocate markets and exclude competitors from relevant service markets, and a violation under the “Rule of Reason” analysis. To state a claim, the chiropractor needed to show that at least two persons were acting in concert and the restraint constituted an unreasonable restraint on interstate trade or commerce. Whether conventional medicine had a history of attempting to eliminate chiropractic was irrelevant to the Sherman Act claims. The expert did not help establish whether the restraint imposed on the plaintiff chiropractor was reasonable. The scope of chiropractic practice was also not relevant to whether the restraint was reasonable.

The case is No. 1:13-cv-01486.

Attorneys: Vincent Mark Amberly (Amberly Law) for Yvoune Kara Petrie. Erin Laura Barrett, Office of the Attorney General, for Virginia Board of Medicine.

Companies: Virginia Board of Medicine

Cases: Antitrust VirginiaNews