Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Richard A. Bolt and Richard A. Bolt, M.D., P.A. v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center

874 F.2d 755

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1989-05-16
Topic
antitrust

PER CURIAM: We granted rehearing en banc in this case, see Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 861 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir.1988), to consider whether the appellee hospitals and their medical staffs were exempt from federal antitrust liability under the state action doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94, 108 S.Ct. 1658, 100 L.Ed.2d 83 (1988).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Richard A. Bolt and Richard A. Bolt, M.D., P.A. v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
16 opinions
BOLT v. HALIFAX HOSP. MEDICAL CENTER,874 F.2d 755(11th Cir. 1989)
RICHARD A. BOLT AND RICHARD A. BOLT, M.D., P.A., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v.
HALIFAX HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
Nos. 84-3256, 84-3603.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 16, 1989.
Donald E. Christopher, Orlando, Fla., Clark Havighurst, Durham, N.C., Hal K. Litchford, Litchford, Christopher Milbrath, P.A., Orlando, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Elizabeth R. Hilder, F.T.C., Washington, D.C., for amicus F.T.C.

William E. Loucks, Daytona Beach, Fla., for Volusia County Medical Soc.

James E. Slater, Orlando, Fla., for Willis Stose, M.D.

J. Charles Ingram, G.B., McVay Voght, Hannah, Marsee, Bilk Voght, Orlando, Fla., for Daytona, Humana, Boye, Marino.

Clinton R. Batterton, David A. Donohoe, Washington, D.C., Harold C. Hubka, Daytona Beach, Fla., for Halifax Hosp. Medical Center.

Ronald L. Harrop, Dennis R. O'Connor, Gurney Handley, P.A., Orlando, Fla., for Roberson and Smith M.D.'s.

Adams Hill, Janet W. Adams, Orlando, Fla., for Ormond Beach Hosp.

Emmet J. Bondurant, Bondurant, Mixson Elmore, Michael B. Terry, Atlanta, Ga., for amicus Hosp. Authority of Clarke County.Page 756
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before RONEY, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, CLARK, EDMONDSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLEfn*, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] We granted rehearingen bancin this case,see Bolt v.Halifax Hosp. Medical Center,861 F.2d 1233(11th Cir. 1988), to consider whether the appellee hospitals and their medical staffs were exempt from federal antitrust liability under the state action doctrine ofParker v. Brown,317 U.S. 341,63 S.Ct. 307,87 L.Ed. 315(1943), as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court inPatrick v. Burget,486 U.S. 94,108 S.Ct. 1658,100 L.Ed.2d 83(1988). A panel of this court had answered this question affirmatively, concluding that Florida's regulatory scheme, which provided for probing judicial review of peer review board decisions regarding medical staff privileges, constituted "active state supervision" sufficient to invokeParker'sstate action exemption.See Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center,851 F.2d 1273,1282(11th Cir. 1988).

[2] In oral argument before theen banccourt, the appellee hospitals and their medical staffs formally withdrew any claim that they were immune from antitrust liability under the state action exemption. Thus, whether or not the defendants are entitled to immunity underParker's state action exemption, they now have clearly waived that immunity in this case. Since we granted rehearing solely to consider this issue, further consideration of the case by theen banccourt is unnecessary.

[3] The court therefore reinstates the panel opinion,see Bolt v.Halifax Hosp. Medical Center,851 F.2d 1273(11th Cir. 1988), with the exception of the opinion's discussion of the state action exemption,see id.at 1279-84, which remains vacated and without precedential value. The case is thus remanded to the panel, which shall reconsider its decision in light of the hospitals' and medical staffs' waiver of immunity and the parties' outstanding petition for rehearing.

[4] IT IS SO ORDERED.
  1. Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Elbert P. Tuttle has elected to participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to28 U.S.C.A. § 46(c). ↩