Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—MDFla: Denial of Certification for Proposed Class of Health Care Providers to Pursue Monopoly Claims Stands, (Jan 21, 2013)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

The federal district court in Tampa has denied a motion to reconsider an order denying a hospital's motion for class certification in an antitrust action against a drug manufacturer that was the exclusive licensee of two relevant patents involving adenosine—a drug used to increase the accuracy of cardiac stress tests. The hospital “failed to meet its burden of demonstrating via facts or law of a strongly convincing nature that reconsideration is required” (Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Astellas US, LLC, January 14, 2013, Covington, V.).

On September 24, 2012, the court denied a motion for class certification filed by Lakeland Regional, a full-service, not-for-profit hospital headquartered in Lakeland, Florida. (2012-2 Trade Cases ¶78,069). Lakeland Regional alleged that defendants Astellas US, LLC and Astellas Pharma US, Inc. (collectively, “Astellas”) engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive, monopolistic, and exclusionary activity with respect to adenosine, which is a naturally occurring compound that induces the dilation of blood vessels. Adenosine is used to stress the heart in order to increase the accuracy of stress tests performed by health care providers.

Lakeland Regional lacked standing as an indirect purchaser of the drug to represent a class of health care providers that purchased the adenosine products. The hospital purchased the Astellas adenosine products from two wholesalers. Lakeland Regional's “pass on” claim was precisely the kind barred by the Illinois Brick doctrine, which permits only direct purchasers (with only narrow exceptions that did not apply in this case) to bring an antitrust claim for overcharges, the court explained.

On October 9, 2012, the hospital filed a motion for reconsideration. According to the court, there were three grounds to justify reconsideration of a prior order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e): (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.

While Lakeland Regional provided the court with “a scholarly analysis of antitrust law and present[ed] creative arguments” that a change in the law was warranted, the court refused to deviate from the Illinois Brick doctrine. In addition, the hospital did not come forward with new evidence, nor did it demonstrate that reconsideration was mandated to correct an error or to prevent manifest injustice. Instead, Lakeland Regional “rehashes matters that have already been decided,” in the court's view.

This is Case No.: 8:10-cv-2008-T-33TGW.

Attorneys: Andrew E. Brashier (Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.) for plaintiff. Amanda Arnold Sansone (Carlton Fields, PA) for defendants.

Companies: Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc.; Astellas US, LLC

Cases: Antitrust FloridaNews