Articles Posted in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

by
Plaintiff-Appellant Suture Express, Inc. appeals from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Cardinal Health 200, LLC (“Cardinal”) and Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc. (“O&M”) under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act, and the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act (“KRTA”). Suture Express, Cardinal, and O&M compete in the national broadline medical-and-surgical (“med-surg”) supply and distribution market. After Suture Express entered the "suture-endo" market and steadily grew its market share, Cardinal and O&M responded by instituting bundling packages in their contracts. Suture Express sued Cardinal and O&M, alleging that their bundling arrangements constituted an illegal tying practice in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The court held that Suture Express’s federal claims failed as a matter of law because it could not establish that either Cardinal or O&M individually possessed sufficient market power in the other-med-surg market that would permit it to restrain trade in the suture-endo market. Even were this not the case, however, the court also held that: (1) Suture Express could not establish antitrust injury because it had not shown that competition itself had been harmed; and (2) Cardinal and O&M cited sufficient procompetitive justifications for the bundling arrangement to overcome any harm caused by any anticompetitive effects resulting from the bundle. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Suture Express, the Tenth Circuit did not think the company could survive summary judgment under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act, or the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. "There simply is not enough probative evidence by which a reasonable jury could find that Cardinal’s and O&M’s bundling arrangement unreasonably restrained trade in violation of federal or state antitrust law." View "Suture Express v. Owens & Minor" on Justia Law

by
In 2010, Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corporation (“Lenox”) sued several related corporations, Medtronic, Inc.; Medtronic PS Medical, Inc. (“PS Medical”); Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. (“MSD, Inc.”); and Medtronic Sofamor Danek Co. Ltd. (“MSD Japan”) (collectively, “Defendants”), for monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. Lenox alleged that Defendants engaged in illegal activity to advance a coordinated, anticompetitive scheme in which a related non-party, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (“MSD USA”), also participated. Lenox sued MSD USA in 2007 on claims arising from the same set of facts. In this case, Lexon challenged the district court’s disposition of Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment, which claimed that Lenox could not prove the elements of its antitrust claims against any of the named Defendants individually, and that Defendants cannot be charged collectively with the conduct of MSD USA or of each other. They also argued that the doctrine of claim preclusion barred Lenox’s claims, in light of the prior proceeding against MSD USA. The district court granted summary judgment, holding that because Lenox could not establish each of the elements of an antitrust claim against any one defendant, or establish a conspiracy among them, Lenox’s claims failed as a matter of law. Lenox appealed. But finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic" on Justia Law

by
LeGrand Belnap, M.D., was a surgeon at the Salt Lake Regional Medical Center (“SLRMC”). Dr. Belnap and SLRMC entered into a Management Services Agreement under which he would provide consulting services to help SLRMC develop a new surgical center. The Agreement contained an arbitration provision, including an agreement to arbitrate questions of arbitrability. SLRMC subsequently disciplined Dr. Belnap for alleged misconduct and then reversed course and vacated the discipline. As a result, Dr. Belnap brought various claims against SLRMC, its alleged parent company, and several of its individual employees. These Defendants moved to compel arbitration on the basis of the arbitration provision in the Agreement. The district court determined that most of the claims fell outside the scope of the Agreement, and granted in part and denied in part the motion. Defendants appealed the portions of the district court’s order denying their motion to stay litigation and to compel arbitration, arguing: (1) because the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, the district court erred when it failed to submit all questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator; and (2) even if the parties did not agree to arbitrate arbitrability, the district court erred when it found that any of Dr. Belnap’s claims fell outside the scope of the Agreement, despite also finding that the Agreement’s dispute-resolution provision was broad. The Tenth Circuit found that by incorporating the JAMS Rules into the Agreement, Dr. Belnap and SLRMC evidenced a clear and unmistakable intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Nevertheless, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court reached the right outcome regarding Dr. Belnap’s first claim against SLRMC (compelling that claim to arbitration) and upheld that portion of its order. The Court felt “constrained,” however, to reverse the order as to the remainder of the SLRMC claims. The Court remanded, instructing the court to compel all of Dr. Belnap’s claims against SLRMC to arbitration. With respect to Defendants wh did not sign the Agreement, the Court held they were not entitled to enforce the arbitration provision of the Agreement. Thus, the Court affirmed the district court’s order in this respect. View "Belnap v. Iasis Healthcare" on Justia Law

by
At issue in this case was the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 12181(7)(F), which makes certain "service establishments" public accommodations for purposes of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title III, in turn, generally prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability. Brent Levorsen suffered from various psychiatric disorders, including borderline schizophrenia. For years, Levorsen has donated plasma in exchange for money in an effort to supplement his limited income. And in May 2013, he attempted to do just that at a Salt Lake City branch of Octapharma Plasma, Inc. When an Octapharma employee learned that Levorsen suffers from borderline schizophrenia, the employee became concerned that Levorsen might have a schizophrenic episode while donating and dislodge the collecting needle, possibly injuring himself or someone else. The employee thus advised Levorsen that he was ineligible to donate plasma. Levorsen then provided Octapharma with a signed form from his psychiatrists, who both indicated that Levorsen is medically suitable to donate plasma twice a week. When Octapharma maintained its refusal to allow Levorsen to donate, he brought this action under Title III of the ADA. The district court concluded that plasma-donation centers (PDCs) aren’t service establishments because, unlike section 12181(7)(F)’s enumerated examples, PDCs don’t provide a service to the public in exchange for a fee. The Tenth Circuit found this "superficial distinction" irrelevant. Under the plain language of section 12181(7)(F), a PDC was a "'service establishment' for two exceedingly simple reasons: It’s an establishment. And it provides a service." Because the district court erred in concluding otherwise, and in dismissing the underlying action on that basis, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Levorsen v. Octapharma Plasma" on Justia Law

by
Caring Hearts Personal Home Services, Inc. provided physical therapy and skilled nursing services to “homebound” Medicare patients. It sought reimbursement from Medicare for services provided. The definition of who qualified as "homebound" or what services qualified as "reasonable and necessary" was unclear, even to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS has developed its own rules on both subjects that had been repeatedly revised and expanded over time. In an audit, CMS purported to find that Caring Hearts provided services to at least a handful of patients who didn’t qualify as “homebound” or for whom the services rendered weren’t “reasonable and necessary.” As a result, CMS ordered Caring Hearts to repay the government over $800,000. It was later found that in reaching its conclusions CMS applied the wrong law: the agency did not apply the regulations in force in 2008 when Caring Hearts provided the services in dispute. Instead, it applied considerably more onerous regulations the agency adopted years later, "[r]egulations that Caring Hearts couldn’t have known about at the time it provided its services." The Tenth Circuit found that Caring Hearts "[made] out a pretty good case that its services were entirely consistent with the law as it was at the time they were rendered" when CMS denied Caring Hearts' request for reconsideration. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment affirming CMS' denial to Caring Hearts for reimbursement, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Caring Hearts v. Burwell" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff Leslie Taylor asked the Colorado Medicaid program to combine the benefits she received through two assistance programs to help her get to medical appointments. If approved, this combination would allow the agency to pay attendants for time driving Taylor to and from her appointments. The agency refused, and the plaintiffs in this case alleged that the refusal constituted discrimination against Taylor based on her disability. The Tenth Circuit concluded that this refusal did not constitute discriminate against Taylor based on her disability. View "Taylor v. Colorado Dept of Health Care" on Justia Law