Tag: Nonmerger

After an administrative trial, the administrative law judge found that a group of affiliated intrastate movers had engaged in horizontal price-fixing by filing collective rates on behalf of its member motor common carriers for the intrastate transportation of property within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The judge also ruled that the association’s conduct was not protected by the state action doctrine because the State of Kentucky did not supervise the rate-making practices of the group. On July 12, 2004, the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. filed an appeal of the initial decision with the Commission. On June 22, 2005, the Commission issued a unanimous opinion finding that the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. engaged in illegal price-fixing by jointly filing tariffs containing collective rates on behalf of its members, and that the state action doctrine does not immunize that activity from antitrust liability. On August 22, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the opinion of the Commission.

An administrative law judge dismissed a complaint in its entirety against Union Oil of California that charged the company with committing fraud in connection with regulatory proceedings before the California Air Resources Board regarding the development of reformulated gasoline. The judge ruled much of Unocal’s conduct was permissible activity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and that the resolution of the issues outlined in the complaint would require an in depth analysis of patent law which he believed were not with the jurisdiction of the Commission. In July 2004, the Commission reversed the judge’s ruling and reinstated charges that Unocal illegally acquired monopoly power in the technology market for producing a “summer-time” low-emissions gasoline mandated for sale and use by the CARB for use in the state for up to eight months of the year. While the case was pending before the administrative law judge, Unocal agreed to settle the claims and cease and desist enforcing Unocal’s patents covering reformulated gasoline that complies with California Air resources Board Standard, will not undertake any new enforcement efforts related to the particular patents, and will cease all attempts to collect damages, royalties, or other payments related to the use of any of the patents.  The settlement in this case was related to the settlement of FTC charges that Chevron's acquisition of Unocal would substantially lessen competition in the refining and marketing of CARB reformulated gasoline, as Chevron would acquire the relevant Unocal patents through the acquisition and would be able to use its position to coordinate with its downstream competitors, to the detriment of consumers.  See In the Matter of Chevron Corporation and Unocal Corporation.

The Commission settled charges with two small groups of orthopedic physicians in the Cincinnati area that had formed an independent practice association that jointly negotiated contracts regarding the rates its physician members would charge health plans and other payors for their services. In addition to the usual prohibitions on joint negotiations, the Commission’s order disbanded the IPA and prohibited future collective bargaining.

The order prohibits Preferred Health Services from orchestrating collective agreements and other terms for physician services when negotiating with health insurance plans and other third party payers. According to the complaint these agreements among the physician-hospital organization of doctors and the Oconee Memorial Hospital in northwestern South Carolina to collectively negotiate fees and terms of services could lead to higher health care costs and limited physician access.

With an administrative complaint issued on July 8, 2003 the Commission charged a San Francisco, California physicians’ organization with engaging in an agreement under which its competing members agreed collectively on the price and other terms on which they would enter into contracts with health plans or other third party payers. The complaint also alleged that Brown and Toland directed its physicians to end their preexisting contracts with payers and required its physician members to charge specified prices in all Preferred Provider Organization contracts. A final consent order prohibits Brown and Toland from negotiating with payers on behalf of physicians, refusing to deal with payers, and setting terms for physicians to deal with payers, unless the physicians are clinically or financially integrated.

The Virginia Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers settled charges that it prohibited Virginia funeral directors and service providers from engaging in truthful advertising that would inform consumers of prices and discounts for funeral products and services. Under terms of the consent order, the Board is prohibited from engaging in such practices in the future and is required to amend its regulation prohibiting Board licensees from advertising funeral services including those services that can be contracted prior to the death of the person whose funeral is being planned.

With an administrative complaint issued on December 22, 2003 the Commission charged Piedmont Health Alliance, Inc. with collectively setting prices it demanded for physician services with third party payers. According to the complaint, the physician-hospital organization entered into signed agreements on behalf of its member physicians to participate in all contracts negotiated and to accept the negotiated physician fees. The complaint further alleges that these practices eliminated price competition among physicians in the North Carolina counties of Alexander, Burke, Caldwell and Catawba. The complaint also names ten individual physicians who participated in the alleged price fixing services. On August 10, 2004, the organization and physicians agreed to settle charges. Also refer to settlement entered with Tenet Healthcare Corporation (Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc.).

A Roswell, New Mexico physicians’ association, Southeastern New Mexico Physicians IPA, settled charges that it and two of its employees entered into collective agreements among physician members on fees and refused to deal with health plans that did not accept the collective agreed-upon terms. According to the complaint, these practices increased the price of health care in the Roswell area. The consent order prohibits the IPA and its employees named in the consent from orchestrating agreements between physicians to negotiate with health insurance plans on behalf of any physician and deal or refuse to deal individually with any third party payer.

Private attorneys in Clark County, Washington who provide criminal legal services for indigent defendants under a county contract settled charges that they illegally entered into an agreement known as the “Indigent Defense Bar Consortium Contract” to collectively demand higher fees for certain types of cases and refuse to accept specific additional cases unless the Clark County complied with their demands. The county was forced to substantially increase the reimbursement rate for each of the case categories specified in the Consortium Contract. According to the Commission, the conduct of the attorneys was identical to the boycott staged by criminal defense attorneys in Washington, DC which was ruled to be price fixing by the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association. Robert Lewis, James Sowder, Gerald Wear, and Joel R. Yoseph, the four attorneys who led the activities and served as the representatives of the 43 attorneys who signed the Consortium Contract, were named in the complaint and in the consent order.