Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—W.D. La.: Dentist’s antitrust, deceptive practices claims against dental board director fail, (Mar 17, 2016)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

A dentist failed to sufficiently plead antitrust and deceptive practices claims against a dental board director in relation to state dental board administrative proceedings to revoke his dental license, the federal district court in Shreveport, Louisiana has held (Haygood v. Begue, March 16, 2016, 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 Louisiana State Board of Dentistry 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 Section 1 and 2 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 March 2014, the court granted motions to dismiss by Hill and four board members and investigators.

Haygood amended his complaint to add Dr. H.O. Blackwood, a director on the dental board. Before the court was Blackwood’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Sherman Act claims. The plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead facts to show a prior agreement between the defendants, according to the court. Haygood did not allege when, where, and how a conspiracy was formed; that Blackwood agreed to restrain the trade of dental services; that Blackwood communicated with anyone regarding the restraint of trade; or that Blackwood shared a common intent to restrain trade. Circumstantial evidence that some defendants simply conversed with other defendants was insufficient to show an intent and purpose to form an agreement to unreasonably restrain trade.

Additionally, Haygood failed to sufficiently plead how Blackwood was capable of monopolizing the dental services market. There were no plausible allegations that Blackwood took any action aimed at achieving a “dangerous practice of monopolization” in the area of dentistry.

Deceptive practices claims. The court also determined that the plaintiff failed to establish a plausible claim of unfair or deceptive acts or practices by Blackwood. The Louisiana UTPA prohibits any unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Haygood’s allegations that Blackwood had a negative personal and professional predisposition toward Haygood, had strong influence with the dental board, and encouraged others to take action against Haygood were insufficient to support a claim under the UTPA.

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.

Companies: Haygood Dental Care LLC

Cases: Antitrust StateUnfairTradePractices LouisianaNews