Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin v. Marshfield Clinic
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
65 F.3d 1406 (1995), 884 F.Supp. 1247 (W.D.Wis. 1995), 63 F.3d 1417 (7th Cir. 1995), 116 S.Ct. 1288 (1996)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Insurance company Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin (plaintiff) and its subsidiary health-maintenance organization (HMO), Compcare (plaintiff) filed a claim against Marshfield Clinic (defendant), a physician-owned clinic, and its subsidiary HMO, Security Health Plan of Wisconsin (Security) (defendant). The claim alleged anticompetitive behavior in violation of the Sherman Act. Specifically, Compcare argued that Security had contracted with such a large number of physicians in the relevant region that Compcare was unable to recruit physicians and offer HMO buyers prices that were competitive with Security and that therefore Security had a market monopoly.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.