Saint Alphonsus Medical Center-Nampa Inc. v. St. Luke’s Health System, Ltd.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
778 F.3d 775 (2015)
- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
St. Luke's Health System (St. Luke’s) (defendant) was a nonprofit healthcare system that operated an emergency clinic in Nampa, Idaho. Saltzer Medical Group (Saltzer) was large physician group in Idaho, with several dozen physicians practicing in Nampa. The only hospital in Nampa was operated by Saint Alphonsus Health System, (Saint Alphonsus) (plaintiff). Saltzer was the largest provider of primary care physicians in the Nampa market. St. Luke’s and Saint Alphonsus each employed roughly half of the number of primary care physicians as Saltzer. Several other primary care physicians had solo practices in the area. St. Luke’s acquired Saltzer’s assets and entered into an agreement with Saltzer’s physicians. Saint Alphonsus, the Federal Trade Commission, and the State of Idaho (plaintiffs) filed a complaint seeking to enjoin the merger. The plaintiffs argued that the agreement was prohibited by § 7 of the Clayton Act because of its anticompetitive effects on the Nampa primary care physician market. St. Luke’s countered that anticipated post-merger efficiencies excused the potential anticompetitive price effects. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered divestiture. The trial court also held that St. Luke’s proposed efficiencies were not dependent on the merger. St. Luke’s then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hurwitz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 789,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.