Todorov v. DCH Healthcare Authority

921 F.2d 1438 (1991)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Todorov v. DCH Healthcare Authority

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
921 F.2d 1438 (1991)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

Dr. Alexandre B. Todorov (plaintiff) was a neurologist at DCH Regional Medical Center (DCH) (defendant). Todorov often referred his patients to DCH for computed-tomography (CT) scans. DCH’s radiology department would perform the CT scans, conduct official interpretations, and send the scans to Todorov for his own interpretations. Insurance companies paid one fee for a CT-scan interpretation, generally to the radiologist who performed the official interpretation. Todorov applied for privileges to administer and officially interpret CT scans, hoping to receive the interpretation fees himself. A committee denied Todorov’s application after two radiologists questioned his ability to administer and interpret CT scans. On appeal, an executive committee recommended that Todorov’s application be denied to avoid setting a precedent of granting nonradiologists privileges to perform radiology. The committee feared that allowing such privileges would interfere with the radiology department and cause radiologists to leave DCH. DCH denied Todorov’s application. Todorov sued DCH and its radiologists (defendants) under § 4 of the Clayton Act, alleging that they monopolized the market for CT scans at DCH in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. Todorov asserted that this monopoly allowed the radiologists to charge anticompetitive prices for CT-scan interpretations and that DCH denied his application in order to further the monopoly and prevent him from receiving interpretation fees. The district court granted summary judgment for DCH and the radiologists, finding that Todorov failed to allege an antitrust injury. Todorov appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Tjoflat, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership