Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—W.D. La.: Dentist’s antitrust and deceptive practices claims over revoked license fail, (Apr 3, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

A dentist failed to sufficiently plead antitrust and deceptive practices claims against a competing dentist in relation to state dental board administrative proceedings to revoke his dental license, the federal district court in Shreveport, Louisiana has decided. Antitrust and deceptive practices claims against state dental board members and board investigators were also dismissed for failure to state a claim (Haygood v. Begue, March 31, 2014, Hicks, S.).

Formal complaints by patients and other dentists of unnecessary diagnosis and treatment of periodontal disease led to an investigation and administrative proceeding against dentist Ryan Haygood. A finding by the state dental board to revoke Haygood’s dental license and impose fines was reversed and remanded by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Subsequently, Haygood filed suit against dentist Robert Hill, dental board members, and board investigators, alleging violations of the Sherman and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). Haygood alleged that the defendants conspired to limit competition among dentists in the Shreveport/Bossier City area and engaged in deceptive acts in the board administrative proceeding. In two separate opinions, the court dismissed the claims against Hill and the board members and investigator defendants.

Sherman Act claims. The plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim that Hill was involved in a conspiracy with the dental board to limit competition in the Shreveport/ Bossier

City, Louisiana, area, according to the court. Haygood’s allegation that Hill’s letter to the state dental board about Haygood and the assistance to patients to send letters to the board did not meet the minimum pleading requirement to infer the existence of a conspiracy.

Additionally, Haygood’s allegation that the board members and investigators were involved in a conspiracy to restrain trade among dentists in northwest Louisiana was rejected. The allegation was based on circumstantial evidence of communications between various defendants and did not state facts regarding (1) when, where, and how a conspiracy was formed; (2) the defendants in fact agreed to restrain trade for dental services; (3) the defendants communicated regarding the restraint of trade; or (4) the defendants shared a common intent to restrain trade. Moreover, Haygood failed to allege any facts that the non-dentist defendants had a “dangerous probability of actual monopolization.”

Deceptive practices claims. The plaintiff failed to establish a plausible claim of unfair or deceptive acts or practices by Hill or the other defendants. The Louisiana UTPA prohibits any unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Haygood’s allegations that Hill wrote a letter to the dental board and assisted patients to do the same did not state sufficient facts. Furthermore, Haygood failed to allege any acts by the board members and investigators which would have enable them to achieve an unfair competitive advantage over him since none of those defendants were dentists.

The case is No. 13-CV-0335.

Attorneys: Amber Huffman Watt (Harper Law Firm) for Ryan Haygood and Haygood Dental Care LLC. Thomas M. Hayes, III (Hayes, Harkey, Smith & Cascio, LLP) for Brian Begue. Brad E. Harrigan (Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard) for Ross H. Dies.

Companies: Haygood Dental Care LLC; Camp Morrison Investigations LLC

Cases: Antitrust StateUnfairTradePractices LouisianaNews