Judge decides injuries claimed by pathologists are not antitrust injuries and that plaintiffs have no standing to bring antitrust lawsuit
Four pathologists who filed an antitrust lawsuit alleging their former employer “engaged in a series of unfair and deceptive practices” in an effort to maintain a monopoly on clinical pathology services in central Iowa had their lawsuit dismissed by a federal judge. The plaintiffs appealed the decision. Two related state lawsuits are still pending, one in which the plaintiffs are the defendants.
The four pathologists—Tiffani Milless MD, Caitlin Halverson MD, Renee Ellerbroek MD, and Jared Abbott MD—were employed by Iowa Pathology Associates PC (IPA) and an affiliated company, Regional Laboratory Consultants PC (RLC), both based in Des Moines.
It is common for pathologists in a community to leave one pathology practice and either establish a new practice or join a nearby practice. What is less common is litigation that involves the original group practice and the departed pathologists.
Thus, this example of lawsuits and counter lawsuits is interesting because it creates court rulings about the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments asserted by both plaintiffs and defendants in situations where pathologists leave their employer but continue to practice in the same community.
The court decisions in these cases demonstrate how judges are handling these issues involving antitrust allegations, market share, and non-compete agreements.
“As a result of Defendants’ alleged conduct, Goldfinch asserts its ability to compete has been severely undermined and ‘has the potential to harm patients,’” wrote federal judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, JD (above), in her order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. “These injuries are not antitrust injuries because they do not stem from conduct affecting competition in the pathology and dermatopathology markets generally.” Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology practices can learn from the decisions handed down in this court case. (Photo copyright: Wikipedia.)
Pathologists Accuse Defendants of Suppressing Competition
In their original complaint, which was filed May 13, 2024, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, the plaintiffs said that, beginning in 2021, IPA “strongly pressured” them to sign an employment agreement that would have prevented them from launching a competing practice in the Des Moines area. They refused to comply, but “the administrator of these corporations told these pathologists that the Agreement was in effect even though they had not signed it,” the complaint states.
On October 2022, they informed IPA that they intended to leave to form their own pathology practice, according to the complaint.
The new practice, Goldfinch Laboratory in Urbandale, Iowa, began offering pathology services in February 2023.
“Prior to the formation of Goldfinch, IPA was the only independent pathology practice in central Iowa that was not exclusively tied to one source of referrals,” the complaint states. In addition, “it was the only independent pathology practice in central Iowa that offered dermatopathology services.”
After they notified IPA and RLC of their intention to leave, the plaintiffs alleged that the employer engaged in a series of efforts to “suppress competition” and monopolize the local market for pathology and dermatopathology services.
Plaintiffs Allege Defendants’ Behavior Could Have Harmed Patients
The pathologists were barred from entering IPA’s offices, leaving potential referring physicians with the impression that “these pathologists were no longer practicing,” the complaint states, and preventing them from “maintaining on-going relations with potential referral sources.”
IPA, the complaint alleges, “refused to share biopsy slides with Goldfinch pathologists when those slides were required for continuity of care of the patient—even though this practice was contrary to the standard of care and could well have caused harm to patients.” The complaint characterized this as “an effort to induce referral sources not to make referrals to Goldfinch.”
The plaintiffs also alleged that IPA and RLC made “false and deceptive statements to dissuade referral sources from making referrals to Goldfinch,” for example by claiming that legal problems would force the practice to close.
Given their “monopoly power” in the local market, the plaintiffs argued, IPA and RLC “were able to charge supracompetitive prices for their services.” A $1.4 million contract with one hospital corporation was “in the top 5% of Part A contracts in the United States,” the complaint alleges, and rural hospitals paid “at least 400% of the actual Medicare fee schedule amount for the technical component of pathology services for Medicare patients.”
Defendants’ Response to Allegations
In their motion to dismiss the suit, the defendants argued that Goldfinch was “a classic ‘disgruntled competitor’” that had not demonstrated an “antitrust injury” as defined by federal and state law.
“Goldfinch’s owners used to work for IPA and RLC, voluntarily left, and now seek to litigate their personal financial losses under the guise of federal and state antitrust claims,” the motion states.
The defendants also argued that Goldfinch lacked standing to file an antitrust claim.
Goldfinch “alleges the ‘antitrust practices’ of IPA and RLC are harmful to patients and other payers for pathology and dermatopathology services,” the motion states. “But patients and payers are quite capable of noticing and seeking redress for the alleged harms and Goldfinch need not do so on their behalf.”
In addition, the defendants argued, Goldfinch failed to adequately define a “plausible” product market or geographic market that was subject to the alleged monopoly power.
“Goldfinch’s alleged geographic market is vaguely ill-defined as ‘central Iowa,’” the motion states. “But there is a difference between the service area and a geographic market.” The motion cited an earlier decision in which the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit “deemed a relevant market for a pathology practice to be nationwide.”
Judge’s Decision
Federal judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, JD, sided with the defendants in a decision handed down on Dec. 13.
“As a result of Defendants’ alleged conduct, Goldfinch asserts its ability to compete has been severely undermined and ‘has the potential to harm patients,’” she wrote. “These injuries are not antitrust injuries because they do not stem from conduct affecting competition in the pathology and dermatopathology markets generally. These injuries, instead, are a result of Defendants’ alleged actions targeting Goldfinch and demonstrate an injury to Goldfinch as a competitor—the loss of some patients and referral sources.”
She also agreed with the defendants that Goldfinch lacked sufficient standing to bring an antitrust claim, and that the plaintiffs had failed “to adequately allege a relevant market for pathology and dermatopathology services.”
Goldfinch filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 10.
State Lawsuits Pending
Meanwhile, both parties are awaiting a decision in a state court lawsuit in which the Goldfinch partners are the defendants, according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
IPA filed the suit late in 2022, shortly after learning that the four pathologists planned to leave and start their own practice. It alleged “breach of contract, breach of the common law duty of loyalty, civil conspiracy and tortious interference,” Iowa Capital Dispatch reported at the time, claiming that the pathologists were improperly attempting to lure clients away.
In a related case, Goldfinch pathologists Milless and Halverson have filed a state discrimination lawsuit against their former employer, “alleging they were paid $200,000 to $350,000 annually, which they claim was far less than what some of the less qualified male doctors were paid,” Iowa Capital Dispatch reported. That case goes to trial in August.
This is a plethora of lawsuits involving pathologists and the pathology practices in the communities where they formally practiced. Pathologists and group pathology managers may find useful insights from a study of the legal arguments made by the two parties, as well as the decisions laid down by judges in these court cases.
—Stephen Beale
Related Information:
Lawsuit Claiming Pathology ‘Monopoly’ Is Dismissed by Court
Legal Battle Escalates over Pathologists’ ‘Monopoly’ and Its Impact on Patients
Des Moines Pathologists Sue Their Partners in a Battle over Market Share
