Weiss v. York Hospital
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
745 F.2d 786 (1984)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
York Hospital (York) (defendant) was the larger of two hospitals in a market area and the only one that offered many specialty services. A group of York’s medical staff (the staff) (defendant) controlled York’s staffing decisions. Traditionally, York had allowed only allopathic doctors on its staff, meaning doctors with MD degrees. Dr. Malcolm Weiss (plaintiff) was an osteopath with a DO degree. The state licensed both types of degrees to practice general medicine. Weiss threatened to sue York over its admission policy, which caused York to change its policy to allow osteopaths. However, when Weiss and another osteopath applied, York and the staff conducted an extra investigation on the osteopaths’ character and competence. York admitted the other osteopath, but it denied Weiss, claiming that the special investigation had revealed that Weiss had trouble cooperating with other doctors. York and the staff also continued to treat osteopaths who worked at York less well than they did nonosteopaths. Weiss sued York and the staff, claiming that they were excluding competing osteopaths in violation of antitrust laws. York and the staff admitted that osteopaths were qualified to work at York and claimed that they had not excluded osteopaths. A jury found that York had not committed any violation but that the staff had excluded osteopaths in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. Both sides appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Becker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.