Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—IllAppCt: Dismissal of Medical Patient’s “Simply Conclusory” Antitrust Claims Against Medical Associations Affirmed, (Mar 5, 2013)

By E. Darius Sturmer, J.D.

A medical patient failed to state Illinois Antitrust Act claims against the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Podiatric Medical Association (APMA), and the Illinois Podiatric Medical Association (IPMA) stemming from a foot surgery that had an unsuccessful outcome, an Illinois appellate court has ruled (Holzrichter v. Yorath, March 4, 2013, Delort, M.). Dismissal of the antitrust claims—as well as dismissal of claims of medical malpractice and various other torts and common law violations brought against the doctor, a pair of medical schools, and several other entities connected to the practice of podiatric medicine—was therefore affirmed.

The patient essentially alleged that the medical associations had engaged in cartel-like violations, combinations or conspiracies in unreasonable restraint of trade, and monopolistic behavior through its dictating of certain standards and procedures to the podiatric medical community. He also claimed that medical record falsification was a common practice and routinely used as a defense against negligent patient care to eliminate accountability.

Further, the patient claimed that the medical associations violated the state’s antitrust law by “effectively boycotting” the requirements of a statutory provision that required a plaintiff to submit an affidavit and obtain a written expert medical report confirming that the plaintiff had a reasonable and meritorious cause of action. According to the complaining patient, a boycott had resulted when certain individual podiatric physician members of the APMA and IPMA had declined to sign a written medical opinion that he himself had prepared in support of his purported medical malpractice claims. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the AMA had violated the antitrust law through control over medical malpractice insurance, restricting medical school admissions, and “the cult of silence.”

The complaining patient “provided no further detail in his briefs to explain what he mean[t] by these conclusory assertions,” the appellate court said. The plaintiff’s antitrust claims were similar to others he had brought in the past, which also arose from underlying medical malpractice claims, the court noted. Those, too, were disposed of for lack of factual allegations to substantiate them and for failure to allege an antitrust injury under the law.

In this case, the claims were “simply conclusory and utterly fail[ed] to state a cause of action for violations of the Antitrust Act,” in the appellate court’s view. His damages were for personal injuries, and he failed to plead any facts establishing an alleged antitrust conspiracy in the podiatric medical community to prevent him from obtaining a written medical affidavit in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2-622.

The patient did not specify whether the AMA caused any medical record falsification in this case or, even if that occurred, how he was injured as a result. Moreover, his allegation that the APMA and IPMA were somehow colluding to boycott his efforts to assert a medical malpractice claim amounted to “nothing more than broad, empty and sweeping generalizations.” He alleged no facts in his antitrust claims describing what exactly was illegal about the conduct of the medical associations and how the alleged conduct related to his injuries. Thus, the circuit court’s dismissal of the antitrust claims was proper, and it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing them with prejudice.

The case is No. 1-11-0287.

Attorneys: Lisa Madigan (Illinois Attorney General) for the defendants.

Companies: American Medical Association; American Podiatric Medical Association; Illinois Podiatric Medical Association.

Cases: Antitrust IllinoisNews