Four Corners Nephrology Assocs. v. Mercy Med. Ctr. of Durango (Full Text)
F ILED
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 1
Un i ted S ta te s Cour t o f Appea l s
Ten th C ircu i t
Sep tember 29 , 2009
E l i sabe th A . Shumaker
C lerk o f Cour t
UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PUBL ISH
TENTH C IRCU IT
FOUR CORNERS NEPHROLOGY
ASSOC IATES , P .C . , a New Mex ico
p ro fess iona l co rpo ra t ion , and DR .
MARK F . BEVAN ,
P la in t i f fs -Appe l lan ts ,
v .
MERCY MED ICAL CENTER OF
DURANGO , a Co lo rado no t – fo r -p ro f i t
co rpo ra t ion ,
De fendan t -Appe l lee .
No . 08 -1231
Appea l from the Un i ted S ta te s D i s tr ic t Cour t
for the D i s tr ic t o f Co lorado
(D .C . No . 05 -CV -2084 -JAP -LFG )
Howa rd Fe l le r o f McGu i re Woods LLP , R ichmond , V i rg in ia (K r is ten M . Ca l le ja
o f McGu i re Woods LLP ; and James E . Ha r t ley and Cono r F . Fa r ley , o f Ho l land &
Ha r t , LLP , Denve r , Co lo rado , w i th h im on the b r ie fs ) , fo r P la in t i f fs -Appe l lan ts .
Ma rk L . Sabey (Pe te r A . Sabey w i th h im on the b r ie f ) , o f Ku tak Rock LLP ,
Denve r , Co lo rado , fo r De fendan t -Appe l lee .
Be fo re HENRY , Ch ie f C i rcu i t Judge , and HOLLOWAY and GORSUCH ,
C i rcu i t Judges .
GORSUCH , C i rcu i t Judge .
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 2
To p rov ide Du rango , Co lo rado , res iden ts and Sou the rn U te Ind ian t r ibe
membe rs w i th g rea te r access to k idney d ia lys is and o the r neph ro logy se rv ices ,
Me rcy Med ica l Cen te r , a non -p ro f i t hosp i ta l , toge the r w i th the t r ibe , sough t to
en t ice D r . Ma rk Bevan to jo in the hosp i ta l ’s ac t ive s ta f f . When D r . Bevan
dec l ined , the hosp i ta l h i red somebody e lse . To conv ince tha t phys ic ian and o the rs
to se t t le in Du rango , and awa re tha t s ta r t ing a neph ro logy p rac t ice was l ike ly to
p rove unp ro f i tab le fo r the fo reseeab le fu tu re , the hosp i ta l and t r ibe ag reed to
unde rw r i te up to $2 .5 mi l l ion in losses they expec ted the p rac t ice to incu r . To
p ro tec t i ts inves tmen t , Me rcy made i ts new p rac t ice the exc lus ive p rov ide r o f
neph ro logy se rv ices a t the hosp i ta l .
In response , D r . Bevan sued . He con tended tha t Me rcy ’s re fusa l to dea l
w i th o the r neph ro log is ts , inc lud ing h imse l f , amoun ted to the monopo l iza t ion , o r
a t temp ted monopo l iza t ion , o f the ma rke t fo r phys ic ian neph ro logy se rv ices in the
Du rango a rea . The d is t r ic t cou r t g ran ted summa ry judgmen t to the hosp i ta l , and
we a f f i rm fo r two reasons . F i rs t , the hosp i ta l has no an t i t rus t du ty to sha re i ts
fac i l i t ies w i th D r . Bevan a t the expense o f i ts own neph ro logy p rac t ice . Second ,
in demand ing access to Me rcy ’s fac i l i t ies , D r . Bevan seeks to sha re—no t to
undo— the hosp i ta l ’s pu ta t ive monopo ly . Tha t , o f cou rse , is no t wha t the an t i t rus t
laws a re abou t : they seek to advance compe t i t ion , no t advan tage compe t i to rs .
– 2 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 3
I
A
V iew ing the fac ts in the l igh t mos t favo rab le to D r . Bevan as the summa ry
judgmen t non -movan t , they revea l tha t D r . Bevan and h is assoc ia tes a t Fou r
Co rne rs Neph ro logy Assoc ia tes , P .C . , en joy a th r iv ing p rac t ice based in
Fa rming ton , New Mex ico . Fo r yea rs , pa t ien ts th roughou t the Fou r Co rne rs a rea
(whe re Co lo rado , U tah , New Mex ico , and A r izona mee t ) have t rave led to D r .
Bevan ’s o f f ice to rece ive k idney d ia lys is and o the r ou tpa t ien t neph ro logy
se rv ices . These inc lude pa t ien ts f rom Du rango , Co lo rado , and i ts nea rby
Sou the rn U te Ind ian rese rva t ion , many o f whom requ i re d ia lys is th ree t imes pe r
week . Each round – t r ip d r ive be tween Du rango and Fa rming ton can take these
pa t ien ts an hou r -and -a -ha l f o r mo re .
In pa r t because o f the d is tance to Fa rming ton and the p reva lence o f k idney
d isease in the Du rango a rea , mos t acu te ly among membe rs o f the Sou the rn U te
t r ibe , the t r ibe , Me rcy hosp i ta l , and the Du rango Ro ta ry C lub a l l sough t fo r many
yea rs to conv ince D r . Bevan to p rov ide k idney d ia lys is and o the r neph ro logy
se rv ices in Du rango . D r . Bevan cons is ten t ly dec l ined these inv i ta t ions . Wh i le
D r . Bevan he ld consu l t ing med ica l p r iv i leges a t Me rcy , and occas iona l ly took
inqu i r ies by phone f rom doc to rs the re , the las t t ime he en te red the Du rango
hosp i ta l to t rea t pa t ien ts was in 1995 .
– 3 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 4
Unab le to lu re D r . Bevan to town , Me rcy and the t r ibe dec ided to unde r take
a jo in t e f fo r t to rec ru i t ano the r neph ro log is t . A f te r ex tens ive in te rv iews , the t r ibe
se lec ted D r . Ma rk Sadd le r , who ag reed to come to Du rango in 2005—bu t on a
cond i t ion . Conce rned tha t pa t ien t numbe rs in Du rango wou ld no t p rov ide h im
w i th the income he p rev ious ly en joyed , D r . Sadd le r ins is ted tha t the hosp i ta l
emp loy h im on a sa la r ied bas is . The hosp i ta l ag reed . An t ic ipa t ing tha t i ts new
neph ro logy p rac t ice wou ld lose money fo r many yea rs , the hosp i ta l a lso ag reed to
unde rw r i te losses o f up to $500 ,000 ove r seven yea rs , wh i le the t r ibe ag reed to
backs top ce r ta in add i t iona l losses , depos i t ing $2 mi l l ion in to a t rus t fund fo r tha t
pu rpose . In add i t ion , D r . Sadd le r was pe rmi t ted to se rve as the d i rec to r o f a new ,
independen t ly owned ou tpa t ien t d ia lys is cen te r in Du rango .
Unde r Me rcy ’s p reex is t ing by laws , the emp loymen t o f D r . Sadd le r as a
fu l l – t ime ac t ive neph ro log is t au toma t ica l ly te rmina ted D r . Bevan ’s consu l t ing
p r iv i leges . The po in t o f consu l t ing s ta f f membe rs , the by laws make c lea r , is
l imi ted to f i l l ing gaps in the expe r t ise o f the hosp i ta l ’s ac t ive s ta f f : “Consu l t ing
S ta f f cons is t o f p rov ide rs who o f fe r se rv ices requ i red o r des i red bu t no t o the rw ise
p rov ided by an Ac t ive Med ica l S ta f f membe r .” Me rcy Med ica l S ta f f By laws , J .A .
a t 419 . Wh i le no longe r e l ig ib le to se rve as a consu l t ing s ta f f membe r , D r . Bevan
was ab le , cons is ten t w i th the hosp i ta l ’s by laws , to rema in a membe r o f i ts
cou r tesy s ta f f , a pos i t ion tha t a l lowed h im to consu l t and w r i te o rde rs w i th the
pe rmiss ion o f an a t tend ing phys ic ian .
– 4 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 5
Unsa t is f ied w i th these deve lopmen ts , D r . Bevan , a long w i th one o f h is
assoc ia tes a t Fou r Co rne rs Neph ro logy , f i led an app l ica t ion to become a membe r
o f the hosp i ta l ’s ac t ive s ta f f , on pa r w i th D r . Sadd le r and compe t ing w i th the
hosp i ta l ’s neph ro logy p rac t ice . Me rcy ’s by laws d id no t fo rb id the hosp i ta l f rom
hav ing two ac t ive s ta f f membe rs w i th the same expe r t ise , bu t they d id p resen t a t
leas t one s ign i f ican t hu rd le fo r D r . Bevan . Un l ike membe rs o f the consu l t ing
s ta f f , membe rs o f the hosp i ta l ’s ac t ive s ta f f we re ob l iged by the by laws to res ide
w i th in 30 minu tes o f the hosp i ta l in o rde r to be ava i lab le to p rov ide eme rgency
ca re . To mee t th is manda te , D r . Bevan , who con t inued to l ive in Fa rming ton , f i rs t
sugges ted tha t he res ided in Du rango o f f ice space . When tha t gamb i t fa i led to
pe rsuade hosp i ta l au tho r i t ies , he to ld Me rcy he had leased a res idence nea r
Du rango , wh ich , on inves t iga t ion , tu rned ou t to be a p lo t o f vacan t land .
As these even ts un fo lded , Me rcy dec ided to p reemp t any fu tu re app l ica t ion
f rom D r . Bevan and h is co l leagues by des igna t ing i ts neph ro logy p rac t ice—now
inc lud ing D r . Sadd le r and a pa r tne r—as the so le p rov ide r o f neph ro logy se rv ices
to the hosp i ta l . Me rcy c i ted seve ra l fac to rs con t r ibu t ing to i ts dec is ion . F i rs t ,
hosp i ta l admin is t ra to rs exp ressed conce rn tha t g ran t ing ac t ive s ta f f membe rsh ip to
D r . Bevan and o the r Fou r Co rne rs Neph ro logy doc to rs wou ld reduce the vo lume
o f pa t ien ts fo r D r . Sadd le r and h is pa r tne r to the po in t whe re they wou ld lose
techn ica l p ro f ic iency o r leave fo r be t te r jobs . Second , wh i le Me rcy and the t r ibe
an t ic ipa ted tha t the hosp i ta l ’s new neph ro logy p rac t ice wou ld ope ra te a t a loss ,
– 5 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 6
they fea red tha t g ran t ing s ta f f p r iv i leges to o the r neph ro log is ts wou ld exace rba te
those losses , caus ing the hosp i ta l to d raw down the Sou the rn U te and hosp i ta l
subs id ies mo re rap id ly . U l t ima te ly , the hosp i ta l fea red tha t money wou ld run ou t
be fo re i ts p rac t ice cou ld become se l f -sus ta in ing . F ina l ly , Me rcy admin is t ra to rs
exp ressed conce rn tha t D r . Bevan wou ld o f fe r a repea t pe r fo rmance o f h is ac t ions
in Page , A r izona . Acco rd ing to them ( though d ispu ted by D r . Bevan ) , when a
compe t ing g roup o f neph ro log is ts opened a d ia lys is cen te r in Page , abou t fou r
hou rs wes t o f Fa rming ton , D r . Bevan responded by open ing h is own d ia lys is
cen te r in Page . The town appa ren t ly cou ldn ’ t suppo r t two compe t ing c l in ics ,
howeve r , and the compe t i to r c l in ic soon c losed . Sho r t ly a f te r tha t , D r . Bevan
c losed h is c l in ic in Page , leav ing the town w i th no neph ro logy p rac t ice and many
o f i ts k idney d ia lys is pa t ien ts once aga in w i th a fou r -hou r t rek to Fa rming ton . In
l igh t o f i ts unde rs tand ing o f th is ep isode , the hosp i ta l wo r r ied tha t D r . Bevan ’s
t rue in ten t ions we re to des t roy Du rango ’s neph ro logy p rac t ice , ra the r than to
inc rease the qua l i ty and quan t i ty o f neph ro logy se rv ices in Du rango .
B
In response the hosp i ta l ’s dec is ion , D r . Bevan f i led th is lawsu i t . Wh i le h is
comp la in t ou t l ined va r ious causes o f ac t ion , fo r pu rposes o f th is appea l D r . Bevan
pu rsues on ly h is c la ims tha t Me rcy ’s dec is ion to exc lude h im and o the r
neph ro log is ts f rom admi t t ing pa t ien ts amoun ted to the un law fu l monopo l iza t ion ,
o r a t temp ted monopo l iza t ion , o f the ma rke t fo r “neph ro logy phys ic ian se rv ices”
– 6 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 7
in the “Du rango a rea ,” in v io la t ion o f Sec t ion 2 o f the She rman Ac t , 15 U .S .C .
§ 2 , and the Co lo rado An t i t rus t Ac t o f 1992 , C .R .S . §§ 6 -4 -101 e t seq . 1 He now
s tands ready , he says , to res ide in Du rango and p rac t ice neph ro logy the re , bu t
canno t do so w i thou t some assu rance he migh t be cons ide red fo r ac t ive s ta f f
p r iv i leges a t Me rcy . In due cou rse , Me rcy moved fo r summa ry judgmen t . W i th
respec t to the an t i t rus t c la ims rema in ing in p lay be fo re us , Me rcy ra ised many
a rgumen ts , inc lud ing tha t D r . Bevan ’s p roposed ma rke t de f in i t ion was fa ta l ly
f lawed , tha t Me rcy possessed no monopo ly powe r , tha t D r . Bevan su f fe red no
an t i t rus t in ju ry , and tha t the hosp i ta l engaged in no an t icompe t i t ive conduc t .
Among these va r ious a rgumen ts , the d is t r ic t cou r t focused on one , g ran t ing
summa ry judgmen t to the hosp i ta l on the bas is tha t i t lacked monopo ly powe r o r
1 The pa r t ies ag ree tha t fede ra l an t i t rus t law p r inc ip les con t ro l bo th D r .
Bevan ’s fede ra l and s ta te an t i t rus t c la ims . The Co lo rado Sup reme Cou r t , whose
judgmen t na tu ra l ly is f ina l on ma t te rs o f s ta te law , has he ld tha t , “ [g ] iven the
subs tan t ia l s imi la r i ty in tex t and pu rpose p resen t in the fede ra l and s ta te an t i t rus t
s ta tu tes , . . . fede ra l dec is ions cons t ru ing the She rman and C lay ton Ac ts , a l though
no t necessa r i ly con t ro l l ing on ou r in te rp re ta t ion o f the Co lo rado law , a re
neve r the less en t i t led to ca re fu l sc ru t iny in de te rmin ing the scope o f the s ta te
an t i t rus t s ta tu te .” Peop le v . N . Ave . Furn i ture & App l iance , Inc . , 645 P .2d 1291 ,
1295 -96 (Co lo . 1982 ) . The Co lo rado Gene ra l Assemb ly s imi la r ly no ted in i ts
passage o f the Co lo rado An t i t rus t Ac t tha t “ the cou r ts [shou ld ] use as a gu ide
in te rp re ta t ions g iven by the fede ra l cou r ts to compa rab le fede ra l an t i t rus t laws .”
C .R .S . § 6 -4 -119 . Cons is ten t w i th these d i rec t ions , we have in the pas t app l ied
fede ra l an t i t rus t ana lys is to Co lo rado an t i t rus t c la ims . See , e .g . , Fu l l Draw Prods .
v . Eas ton Spor ts , Inc . , 182 F .3d 745 , 757 (10 th C i r . 1999 ) . Absen t con t ra ry
d i rec t ion f rom any s ta te au tho r i ty , we see no reason to dev ia te f rom th is p rac t ice
he re and so p roceed to ana lyze D r . Bevan ’s fede ra l and s ta te monopo l iza t ion and
a t temp ted monopo l iza t ion c la ims co l lec t ive ly and w i th a t ten t ion to fede ra l
p receden ts .
– 7 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 8
the dange rous p robab i l i ty o f ach iev ing i t . Monopo ly powe r , o f cou rse , cons is ts o f
“ the powe r to con t ro l p r ices o r exc lude compe t i t ion” in the re levan t p roduc t and
geog raph ic ma rke ts . See Un i ted S ta tes v . Gr inne l l Corp . , 384 U .S . 563 , 570 -71
(1966 ) (quo ta t ion ma rks omi t ted ) . The d is t r ic t cou r t emphas ized tha t
app rox ima te ly 70% o f paymen ts fo r Me rcy ’s neph ro logy se rv ices come f rom
fede ra l o r s ta te “gove rnmen t paye rs” ove r whom Me rcy ho lds no sway when i t
comes to se t t ing the p r ices o r te rms o f i ts se rv ices . See Four Corners Nephro logy
Assocs . , P .C . v . Mercy Med . C tr . o f Durango , 2008 WL 622815 , a t *11 -*12 (D .
Co lo . Ma r . 4 , 2008 ) . App rox ima te ly 1 .6% o f Me rcy ’s neph ro logy pa t ien ts a re so –
ca l led “se l f paye rs”— tha t is , they pay the i r own b i l ls w i thou t in te rcess ion f rom
any gove rnmen ta l o r comme rc ia l hea l th p lan . W i th respec t to these pa t ien ts , the
d is t r ic t cou r t assumed , Me rcy may have the powe r to con t ro l p r ice and ou tpu t .
Me rcy ’s rema in ing neph ro logy pa t ien ts pa r t ic ipa te in comme rc ia l hea l th p lans .
The d is t r ic t cou r t he ld tha t , wh i le Me rcy cou ld sugges t h ighe r p r ices w i th respec t
to these pa t ien ts , the re was no ev idence i t has “any pa r t icu la r ab i l i ty to fo rce” on
these p lans h ighe r p r ices fo r neph ro logy se rv ices , le t a lone tha t the hosp i ta l has
succeeded in do ing so . Id . a t *11 .
I I
We rev iew the ques t ion whe the r to g ran t summa ry judgmen t de novo , and
w i l l a f f i rm a d is t r ic t cou r t ’s dec is ion to do so on ly i f , v iew ing the fac ts in the
l igh t mos t favo rab le to the non -movan t , we d isce rn no genu ine issue as to any
– 8 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 9
ma te r ia l fac t and conc lude tha t movan t is en t i t led to judgmen t as a ma t te r o f law .
Fed . R . C iv . P . 56 (c ) . Unde r tak ing th is ana lys is , we f i rs t examine the ra t iona le
the d is t r ic t cou r t o f fe red fo r i ts g ran t o f summa ry judgmen t to Me rcy , be fo re then
tu rn ing to cons ide r two a l te rna t ive bases the hosp i ta l has p ro f fe red fo r a f f i rmance .
A
D r . Bevan a rgues tha t the d is t r ic t cou r t e r red in i ts monopo ly powe r
ana lys is . Wh i le the d is t r ic t cou r t focused on the hosp i ta l ’s lack o f con t ro l ove r
p r ices fo r the gove rnmen t -paye r segmen t o f the ma rke t , D r . Bevan emphas izes
tha t a t leas t 1 .6% o f Me rcy ’s pa t ien ts “se l f pay” and so a re sub jec t to un i la te ra l
p r ice inc reases by the hosp i ta l . As fo r the app rox ima te ly 30% o f pa t ien ts whose
b i l ls a re pa id by comme rc ia l hea l th p lans , D r . Bevan asse r ts tha t Me rcy has
reques ted and ob ta ined gene ra l ra te inc reases f rom comme rc ia l paye rs a t leas t s ix
t imes in the pas t th ree yea rs . He a lso no tes tha t Me rcy has the ab i l i ty to “ba lance
b i l l” these pa t ien ts— tha t is , the hosp i ta l can seek f rom ind iv idua l pa t ien ts any
d i f fe rence be tween the hosp i ta l ’s s ta ted cha rges and the paymen ts i t rece ives f rom
the pa t ien ts ’ hea l th p lans . G iven these fac ts , D r . Bevan submi ts , a reasonab le
fac t f inde r cou ld conc lude tha t Me rcy ho lds ma rke t powe r even w i th respec t to
pa t ien ts cove red by comme rc ia l hea l th p lans .
In rep ly , Me rcy s t resses tha t i t nego t ia tes re imbu rsemen t ra tes w i th
comme rc ia l hea l th p lans ac ross a fu l l spec t rum o f hosp i ta l se rv ices , and does no t
nego t ia te re imbu rsemen t ra tes fo r neph ro logy phys ic ian se rv ices sepa ra te ly f rom
– 9 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 10
those fo r o the r phys ic ian se rv ices . The hosp i ta l a lso a rgues tha t comme rc ia l
hea l th p lans a re too powe r fu l to a l low i t to s ing le ou t and ra ise p r ices
s ign i f ican t ly on any pa r t icu la r se rv ice , and tha t the re is l i t t le o r no ev idence in the
reco rd o f i t “ba lance b i l l ing” pa t ien ts cove red by such p lans . The hosp i ta l does
no t d ispu te tha t app rox ima te ly 1 .6% o f i ts pa t ien ts a re se l f -paye rs , bu t submi ts
tha t i t has no h is to ry o f goug ing them e i the r .
The pa r t ies ’ monopo ly powe r a rgumen ts ra ise in te res t ing ques t ions ,
inc lud ing the pe r t inence , i f any , o f a f i rm’s con t ro l ove r d isc re te , i f l imi ted ,
ma rke t segmen ts , such as se l f -paye rs . Indeed , how bes t to ana lyze ma rke t powe r
ove r subma rke ts has recen t ly d iv ided ab le judges in an ana logous , a lbe i t d i f fe ren t ,
con tex t . See FTC v . Who le Foods Mk t . , Inc . , 548 F .3d 1028 (D .C . C i r . 2008 ) .
The b r ie fs be fo re us a lso a r t fu l ly add ress whe the r and to wha t deg ree the
ex is tence o f o f ten la rge comme rc ia l hea l th p lans may p rec lude a re la t ive ly sma l l
reg iona l hosp i ta l f rom exe rc is ing p r ice con t ro l ove r pa r t icu la r phys ic ian se rv ices .
C f . Je f ferson Par ish Hosp . D is t . No . 2 v . Hyde , 466 U .S . 2 , 28 n .47 (1984 ) ,
abroga ted by I l l . Too l Works Inc . v . Indep . Ink , Inc . , 547 U .S . 28 (2006 )
(“ Insu rance compan ies a re the p r inc ipa l sou rce o f p r ice res t ra in t in the hosp i ta l
indus t ry ; they p lace some l imi ta t ions on the ab i l i ty o f hosp i ta ls to exp lo i t the i r
ma rke t powe r .” ) . Bu t fo r tuna te ly , th is case doesn ’ t requ i re us to add ress , le t
a lone reso lve , these ques t ions . We may a f f i rm the d is t r ic t cou r t on any bas is tha t
f inds adequa te suppo r t in the reco rd , and be fo re us Me rcy has p ressed a t leas t two
– 10 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 11
lega l a rgumen ts tha t o f fe r s t ra igh t fo rwa rd , we l l -se t t led , and amp ly pe rsuas ive
bases fo r do ing jus t tha t .
B
Me rcy a rgues tha t i ts re fusa l to dea l w i th D r . Bevan does no t cons t i tu te
an t icompe t i t ive conduc t w i th in the mean ing o f Sec t ion 2 o f the She rman Ac t o r
i ts s ta te law ana log . See , e .g . , Answe r B r . a t 41 -44 . We ag ree . The Sup reme
Cou r t has recen t ly emphas ized the gene ra l ru le tha t a bus iness , even a pu ta t ive
monopo l is t , has “no an t i t rus t du ty to dea l w i th i ts r iva ls a t a l l .” Pac . Be l l Te l .
Co . v . L ink l ine Commc ’ns , Inc . , 129 S . C t . 1109 , 1115 (2009 ) ; see a lso id . a t 1118
(“As a gene ra l ru le , bus inesses a re f ree to choose the pa r t ies w i th whom they w i l l
dea l , as we l l as the p r ices , te rms , and cond i t ions o f tha t dea l ing .” ) ; Ver izon
Commc ’ns Inc . v . Law O f f ices o f Cur t is V . Tr inko , LLP , 540 U .S . 398 , 407 (2004 )
(“ [A ]s a gene ra l ma t te r , the She rman Ac t ‘does no t res t r ic t the long recogn ized
r igh t o f [a ] t rade r o r manu fac tu re r engaged in an en t i re ly p r iva te bus iness , f ree ly
to exe rc ise h is own independen t d isc re t ion as to pa r t ies w i th whom he w i l l dea l . ’”
(quo t ing Un i ted S ta tes v . Co lga te & Co . , 250 U .S . 300 , 307 (1919 ) ) (second
a l te ra t ion in o r ig ina l ) ) .
Th is p resump t ion shou ld ha rd ly su rp r ise . A l low ing a bus iness to reap the
f ru i ts o f i ts inves tmen ts “ is an impo r tan t e lemen t o f the f ree -ma rke t sys tem” : i t is
wha t “ induces r isk tak ing tha t p roduces innova t ion and economic g row th .” Id . ;
see a lso Chr is ty Spor ts , LLC v . Deer Va l ley Resor t Co . , L td . , 555 F .3d 1188 , 1194
– 11 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 12
(10 th C i r . 2009 ) (“The Sup reme Cou r t has recogn ized the economic va lue o f
a l low ing bus inesses to dec ide w i th whom they w i l l dea l . . . .” ) . W i thou t some
con f idence tha t they can con t ro l access to the i r own p rope r ty , rea l o r in te l lec tua l ,
how many f i rms wou ld be de te r red f rom unde r tak ing the r isks assoc ia ted w i th ,
say , a s ign i f ican t new endeavo r o r fac i l i ty? In Tr inko , fo r examp le , the p la in t i f f
sough t access to Ve r izon ’s loca l te lephone ne two rk in o rde r to se l l i ts own ,
compe t ing se rv ices . F ind ing tha t Ve r izon had no an t i t rus t du ty to sha re i ts
ne two rk in f ras t ruc tu re , the Sup reme Cou r t exp la ined tha t fo rc ing f i rms “ to sha re
the sou rce o f the i r advan tage is in some tens ion w i th the unde r ly ing pu rpose o f
an t i t rus t law , s ince i t may lessen the incen t ive . . . to inves t in those economica l ly
bene f ic ia l fac i l i t ies .” Tr inko , 540 U .S . a t 407 -08 ; see a lso id . a t 407 (“The
oppo r tun i ty to cha rge monopo ly p r ices—a t leas t fo r a sho r t pe r iod— is wha t
a t t rac ts ‘bus iness acumen ’ in the f i rs t p lace . . . .” ) . Pu t ano the r way , i t is the
inves to r ’s po ten t ia l pay -o f f tha t b reeds r isk – tak ing inves tmen t . To deny the pay –
o f f is to de te r the inves tmen t .
Wh i le Me rcy ’s re fusa l to sha re i ts fac i l i t ies w i th D r . Bevan does no t
cons t i tu te an t icompe t i t ive conduc t su f f ic ien t to sus ta in a c la im fo r
monopo l iza t ion o r a t temp ted monopo l iza t ion , we acknow ledge tha t the pa r t ies
d isag ree abou t how bes t exac t ly to labe l D r . Bevan ’s c la im . A t o ra l a rgumen t ,
though no t in h is b r ie fs , D r . Bevan desc r ibed h is c la im as one fo r “monopo ly
leve rag ing ,” w i th the hosp i ta l a l leged ly us ing i ts monopo ly ove r inpa t ien t
– 12 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 13
neph ro logy se rv ices in the “Du rango a rea” to inh ib i t compe t i t ion in ou tpa t ien t
d ia lys is se rv ices in the same geog raph ic a rea . Whe the r emb rac ing the monopo ly
leve rag ing labe l does any th ing to he lp D r . Bevan ’s cause , though , is ques t ionab le .
Be fo re Tr inko , some cou r ts o f appea ls he ld tha t a monopo l is t cou ld v io la te
Sec t ion 2 by us ing monopo ly powe r in one ma rke t me re ly to ach ieve a
compe t i t ive advan tage in a second ma rke t . Bu t Tr inko und id tha t , exp la in ing tha t
“ the re [mus t a t leas t ] be a ‘dange rous p robab i l i ty o f success ’ in monopo l iz ing a
second ma rke t .” 540 U .S . a t 415 n .4 (quo t ing Spec trum Spor ts , Inc . v .
McQu i l lan , 506 U .S . 447 , 459 (1993 ) ) . See a lso ABA Sec t ion o f An t i t rus t Law ,
An t i t rus t Law Deve lopmen ts 305 (6 th ed . 2007 ) . Tr inko fu r the r emphas ized tha t ,
“ [ i ]n any even t , leve rag ing [ l ike , we migh t add , any o the r Sec t ion 2 c la im]
p resupposes an t icompe t i t ive conduc t ,” ra the r than p rov id ing an excuse fo r
es tab l ish ing such conduc t . 540 U .S . a t 415 n .4 . Whe re , as he re , the on ly poss ib le
cand ida te fo r an t icompe t i t ive conduc t cou ld be “ the re fusa l – to -dea l c la im we have
re jec ted ,” denomina t ing one ’s c la im as sound ing in “monopo ly leve rag ing” won ’ t
do any th ing to save i t . Id . 2
2 I t ’s no t en t i re ly c lea r tha t D r . Bevan has even a l leged the ex is tence o f
two sepa ra te ma rke ts , as h is pu rpo r ted “monopo ly leve rag ing” c la im requ i res . A t
t imes , D r . Bevan has sugges ted tha t the re a re two p roduc t ma rke ts he re—one fo r
“ inpa t ien t neph ro logy phys ic ian se rv ices” and ano the r fo r “ou tpa t ien t neph ro logy
phys ic ian se rv ices .” See Open ing B r . a t 12 . A t o the r t imes , he has in t ima ted we
have jus t one ma rke t be fo re us—one fo r “neph ro logy phys ic ian se rv ices .” See
Second Am . Comp l . , J .A . a t 47 . None o f th is con fus ion , howeve r , a f fec ts ou r
ana lys is , because ou r an t icompe t i t ive conduc t and an t i t rus t in ju ry ho ld ings do no t
(con t inued . . . )
– 13 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 14
A t the same t ime , D r . Bevan has d isc la imed any in te res t in desc r ib ing h is
su i t as invo lv ing an “essen t ia l fac i l i t ies” c la im . Wh i le the labe l seems in some
ways to cap tu re the essence o f h is a rgumen t—he exp ress ly con tends tha t ac t ive
s ta f f membe rsh ip a t the hosp i ta l is c r i t ica l fo r neph ro log is ts to be ab le to compe te
in the Du rango a rea—we can ha rd ly b lame D r . Bevan fo r h is d is in te res t in the
labe l , g iven the Sup reme Cou r t ’s skep t ic ism abou t the “essen t ia l fac i l i t ies
doc t r ine .” See Tr inko , 540 U .S . a t 410 -11 (no t ing tha t the Cou r t has “neve r
recogn ized such a doc t r ine” and “ [ t ]o the ex ten t responden t ’s ‘essen t ia l fac i l i t ies ’
a rgumen t is d is t inc t f rom i ts gene ra l § 2 a rgumen t , we re jec t i t” ) ; see a lso
Tarab ish i v . McA les ter Reg ’ l Hosp . , 951 F .2d 1558 , 1568 n .14 (10 th C i r . 1991 )
(ques t ion ing whe the r “essen t ia l fac i l i t ies doc t r ine” is app l icab le to hosp i ta l
s ta f f ing dec is ions “ fo r pub l ic po l icy reasons” ) ( in te rna l quo ta t ion ma rks omi t ted ) .
In the end , p ick ing an “ep i the t” to f ix on D r . Bevan ’s a rgumen t may be less
i l lumina t ing than con f ron t ing i ts subs tance . C f . Ph i l l ip A reeda , Essen t ia l
Fac i l i t ies : An Ep i the t in Need o f L imi t ing P r inc ip les , 58 An t i t rus t L .J . 841 , 841
(1989 ) (“ [Essen t ia l fac i l i t ies ] is less a doc t r ine than an ep i the t , ind ica t ing some
excep t ion to the r igh t to keep one ’s c rea t ions to onese l f , bu t no t te l l ing us wha t
2( . . .con t inued )
re ly fo r the i r va l id i ty on the p resence o f one ma rke t ve rsus two . Though the
pa r t ies av id ly d ispu te the app rop r ia te scope o f the re levan t geog raph ic
ma rke t—shou ld i t be l imi ted to the “Du rango a rea” o r mo re p rope r ly encompass
the “Fou r Co rne rs a rea”?—dec id ing tha t ques t ion is l ikew ise inessen t ia l to ou r
ana lys is .
– 14 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 15
those excep t ions a re .” ) ; I I IB Ph i l l ip A reeda & He rbe r t Hovenkamp , An t i t rus t Law
¶ 772 , a t 199 (3d ed . 2008 ) (“ ‘ [E ]ssen t ia l fac i l i ty ’ is jus t an ep i the t desc r ib ing the
monopo l is t ’s s i tua t ion : the monopo l is t possesses some th ing the p la in t i f f wan ts .
I t is no t an independen t too l o f ana lys is ; i t is on ly a labe l . . . .” ) . The subs tance
o f D r . Bevan ’s c la im , o f cou rse , is tha t Me rcy , a f te r hav ing en te red the inpa t ien t
neph ro logy bus iness by h i r ing D r . Sadd le r and inves t ing cons ide rab le sums to
ensu re the success o f i ts p rac t ice , engaged in an t icompe t i t ive conduc t by re fus ing
to sha re i ts fac i l i t ies w i th a po ten t ia l r iva l fo r inpa t ien t neph ro logy se rv ices . As
D r . Bevan h imse l f pu ts i t , “Me rcy ba r red [h im] f rom p rov id ing neph ro logy
phys ic ian se rv ices on an inpa t ien t bas is in the Du rango a rea by deny ing h im
med ica l s ta f f p r iv i leges ,” Open ing B r . a t 2 , and “hav ing inpa t ien t neph ro logy
p r iv i leges is essen t ia l fo r a neph ro log is t to compe te success fu l ly [ fo r ou tpa t ien t
d ia lys is pa t ien ts ] ,” id . a t 12 .
In th is , the subs tance o f D r . Bevan ’s c la im , ou r case is ana ly t ica l ly pa ra l le l
to Tr inko and Chr is ty Spor ts . In bo th o f those cases , the p la in t i f f a rgued tha t a
pu ta t ive monopo l is t engaged in an t icompe t i t ive conduc t by fa i l ing to p rov ide a
r iva l access to ce r ta in o f i ts fac i l i t ies . In bo th o f those cases , the c la im was
d ismissed as a ma t te r o f law . In Tr inko , the Sup reme Cou r t a f f i rmed Ve r izon ’s
re fusa l to dea l w i th i ts r iva l because “possess ion o f monopo ly powe r [ is ] un law fu l
[on ly whe re ] accompan ied by an e lemen t o f an t icompe t i t ive conduc t ,” 540 U .S . a t
407 , and Ve r izon ’s dec is ion to deny a r iva l access to i ts own fac i l i t ies in o rde r to
– 15 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 16
max imize i ts own “sho r t – te rm p ro f i ts” re f lec ted “compe t i t ive zea l ,” no t
“an t icompe t i t ive ma l ice ,” id . a t 409 . In the Cou r t ’s v iew , Ve r izon ’s ev iden t
in te res t in pu rsu ing sho r t – te rm p ro f i ts tended to be l ie Sec t ion 2 l iab i l i ty , no t to
sugges t i t . Id . In Chr is ty Spor ts , a sk i ren ta l company comp la ined tha t the Dee r
Va l ley reso r t re fused to ex tend the company ’s lease a t the reso r t . Ho ld ing tha t
Dee r Va l ley ’s conduc t d id no t o f fend the an t i t rus t laws , we exp la ined tha t ,
“ [h ]av ing inves ted t ime and money in deve lop ing a p remie r sk i reso r t . . . , [Dee r
Va l ley ] cou ld recoup i ts inves tmen t in a numbe r o f ways ,” inc lud ing “de lv [ ing ]
mo re deep ly in to the ren ta l sk i ma rke t” w i th in the reso r t by dec l in ing to
accommoda te compe t i to r sk i ren ta l compan ies on i ts p rope r ty and keep ing tha t
oppo r tun i ty fo r i tse l f . Chr is ty Spor ts , 555 F .3d a t 1194 -95 .
Much the same migh t be sa id he re . Hav ing made a subs tan t ia l inves tmen t
in deve lop ing i ts own neph ro logy p rac t ice— indeed , hav ing even t r ied to secu re
D r . Bevan ’s se rv ices fo r tha t p rac t ice—Me rcy is en t i t led to recoup i ts inves tmen t
w i thou t sha r ing i ts fac i l i t ies w i th a compe t i to r . And do ing so may we l l he lp
consume rs . P r io r to the hosp i ta l ’s a r rangemen t w i th D r . Sadd le r , the re we re no
fu l l – t ime neph ro log is ts in Du rango . Now the re a re two , D r . Sadd le r and h is
pa r tne r . As a resu l t , the consume rs— the peop le o f Du rango and membe rs o f the
Sou the rn U te t r ibe—have g rea te r access to neph ro logy se rv ices : they s t i l l may
t rave l to Fa rming ton and D r . Bevan ’s p rac t ice , bu t they now a lso en joy o the r ,
mo re conven ien t op t ions . C f . Chr is ty Spor ts , 555 F .3d a t 1192 (no t ing tha t Dee r
– 16 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 17
Va l ley ’s in i t ia l deve lopmen t o f the reso r t “ inc reased compe t i t ion in the sk i
indus t ry as a who le” ) . As D r . Bevan h imse l f no tes in h is rep ly b r ie f , “Me rcy ’s
P res iden t and D r . Sadd le r tes t i f ied tha t i t was inconven ien t , d is rup t ive and a
ha rdsh ip fo r pa t ien ts in the Du rango a rea to have to d r ive 50 mi les to Fa rming ton
fo r t rea tmen t . Tha t is why the Sou the rn U te Ind ian T r ibe wo rked w i th Me rcy on
deve lop ing inpa t ien t and ou tpa t ien t d ia lys is fac i l i t ies in Du rango .” Rep ly B r . a t
27 (c i ta t ions omi t ted ) .
A t the same t ime , the reco rd revea ls tha t the hosp i ta l co r rec t ly an t ic ipa ted
tha t a neph ro logy p rac t ice in Du rango wou ld ope ra te a t a loss fo r many yea rs and
wou ld requ i re the hosp i ta l and t r ibe to unde rw r i te those losses . In reach ing i ts
dec is ion to deny D r . Bevan p r iv i leges a t the hosp i ta l , Me rcy wo r r ied tha t a
con t ra ry cou rse wou ld cause the p rema tu re exhaus t ion o f i ts loss rese rves and
leave the town w i thou t a neph ro log is t . The reco rd be fo re us thus sugges ts tha t to
fo rce Me rcy to dea l w i th D r . Bevan we l l migh t de te r fu tu re inves tmen ts o f the
so r t the hosp i ta l and t r ibe made in th is case—and thus to unde rmine , ra the r than
p romo te , inves tmen t , innova t ion , and consume r cho ice , as the Sup reme Cou r t
fea red in Tr inko . 540 U .S . a t 407 -08 ; c f . Ba lak law v . Love l l , 14 F .3d 793 , 799
n .13 (2d C i r . 1994 ) ( f ind ing a “p ro -compe t i t ive jus t i f ica t ion” fo r an exc lus ive
con t rac t be tween a doc to r and a hosp i ta l whe re the hosp i ta l judged tha t the doc to r
was mos t respons ive to the hosp i ta l ’s needs ) .
– 17 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 18
Hav ing no ted the gene ra l ru le tha t the an t i t rus t laws don ’ t compe l
compe t i to rs to sha re , the ra t iona les fo r tha t ru le , and the app l icab i l i ty o f bo th to
the case be fo re us , we mus t a lso recogn ize an excep t ion . As the Sup reme Cou r t
has exp la ined , “ [ t ]he h igh va lue tha t we have p laced on the r igh t to re fuse to dea l
w i th o the r f i rms does no t mean tha t the r igh t is unqua l i f ied .” Aspen Sk i ing Co . v .
Aspen H igh lands Sk i ing Corp . , 472 U .S . 585 , 601 (1985 ) . In Aspen Sk i ing , the
lead ing case de l inea t ing when a s ing le f i rm’s un i la te ra l re fusa l to coope ra te w i th
a r iva l migh t run a fou l o f the an t i t rus t laws , the de fendan t Sk i Co . , wh ich owned
and managed th ree Aspen sk i moun ta ins , jo ined w i th H igh lands Co rp . , the owne r
o f a fou r th , to o f fe r a jo in t sk i pass . Id . a t 589 -92 . Th is a r rangemen t con t inued
fo r yea rs . Id . Even tua l ly , howeve r , Sk i Co . dec ided to end the a r rangemen t and
se l l passes fo r i ts th ree a reas a lone . I t even re fused to se l l l i f t t icke ts to
H igh lands Co rp . a t the re ta i l ra tes ava i lab le to consume rs . See id . a t 593 , 610 -11 .
U l t ima te ly , the Sup reme Cou r t he ld tha t Sk i Co . ’s conduc t cou ld be found to
v io la te Sec t ion 2 because Sk i Co . had d isc la imed “sho r t – run bene f i ts and
consume r goodw i l l in exchange fo r a pe rce ived long – run [monopo ly ]” ach ieved
by d r iv ing H igh lands Co rp . f rom the ma rke t . Id . a t 611 . 3
3 As i t happened , a f te r the Sup reme Cou r t ’s dec is ion , H igh lands Co rp .
con t inued to lose money and even tua l ly me rged w i th Sk i Co . , though p resumab ly
fo r a h ighe r p r ice than i t wou ld have commanded be fo re the Cou r t ’s in te rven t ion ,
lead ing some commen ta to rs to a rgue tha t Aspen Sk i ing “amoun ted to no mo re than
a sha r ing o f the monopo ly be tween the pa r t ies .” G len O . Rob inson , On Re fus ing
to Dea l w i th R iva ls , 87 Co rne l l L . Rev . 1177 , 1196 n .74 (2002 ) .
– 18 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 19
Mo re recen t ly , howeve r , f i rs t in Tr inko and then aga in in Pac i f ic Be l l , the
Cou r t has ins t ruc ted us tha t Aspen Sk i ing l ies “a t o r nea r the ou te r bounda r ies o f
§ 2 l iab i l i ty ,” and tha t Aspen Sk i ing con t ro ls on ly whe re the monopo l is t ’s
“un i la te ra l te rmina t ion o f a vo lun ta ry (and thus presumab ly pro f i tab le ) cou rse o f
dea l ing sugges t [s ] a w i l l ingness to fo rsake sho r t – te rm p ro f i ts to ach ieve an
an t icompe t i t ive end .” Tr inko , 540 U .S . a t 409 (c i t ing Aspen Sk i ing , 472 U .S . a t
608 , 610 -11 ) . We a re to ld tha t cou r ts shou ld impose a du ty to dea l unde r Sec t ion
2 on ly “ve ry cau t ious [ ly ] , . . . because o f the unce r ta in v i r tue o f fo rced sha r ing
and the d i f f icu l ty o f iden t i fy ing and remedy ing an t icompe t i t ive conduc t by a
s ing le f i rm .” Id . a t 408 . App ly ing tha t lesson in Chr is ty Spor ts , we he ld tha t “ the
key fac t” pe rmi t t ing l iab i l i ty in Aspen Sk i ing “was tha t the de fendan t te rmina ted a
p ro f i tab le re la t ionsh ip w i thou t any economic jus t i f ica t ion” o the r than an
an t icompe t i t ive one . Chr is ty Spor ts , 555 F .3d a t 1197 (c i t ing Tr inko , 540 U .S . a t
409 ) ; see a lso A reeda & Hovenkamp , supra , ¶ 772 , a t 223 -28 (exp la in ing Aspen
Sk i ing ’s l imi ted ro le pos t -Tr inko ) .
Tha t key fac t is no t p resen t he re . As was t rue in Tr inko and Chr is ty Spor ts ,
in the case be fo re us “ [ t ]he re is no a l lega t ion tha t [Me rcy ] was mo t iva ted by
any th ing o the r than a des i re to make mo re money fo r i tse l f .” Chr is ty Spor ts , 555
F .3d a t 1197 . In Aspen Sk i ing , the monopo l is t was w i l l ing to je t t ison a p ro f i tab le
sho r t – te rm bus iness re la t ionsh ip and deny to a r iva l the re ta i l p r ices ava i lab le to
a l l o the r consume rs . By con t ras t , the ev idence he re sugges ts tha t Me rcy re fused
– 19 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 20
to dea l w i th D r . Bevan to avo id an unpro f i tab le re la t ionsh ip , and tha t the hosp i ta l
pu rsued the cou rse i t d id to p ro tec t and max imize i ts chances o f p ro f i tab i l i ty in
the sho r t – te rm . D r . Bevan h imse l f comes c lose to admi t t ing as much , accus ing
Me rcy o f ha rbo r ing the “goa l” o f “mak [ ing ] i ts neph ro logy phys ic ian p rac t ice
p ro f i tab le ,” Open ing B r . a t 16—an accusa t ion tha t does mo re to unde rcu t than to
unde rsco re Sec t ion 2 l iab i l i ty . See a lso Rep ly B r . a t 4 (“Me rcy d id no t wan t D r .
Bevan to p rov ide neph ro logy se rv ices in the hosp i ta l because i t migh t hu r t the
p ro f i tab i l i ty o f Me rcy ’s neph ro logy p rac t ice .” ) . In fac t , the reco rd be fo re us
revea ls tha t Me rcy , a non -p ro f i t en t i ty , ac ted as i t d id me re ly to keep i ts p rac t ice
f rom becoming so unp ro f i tab le tha t i t wou ld exhaus t mo re rap id ly than
an t ic ipa ted the rese rves the hosp i ta l and t r ibe had se t as ide and leave the town
and t r ibe w i thou t the bene f i t o f a loca l neph ro log is t . Aspen Sk i ing does no t
requ i re mo re economic jus t i f ica t ion than th is to avo id Sec t ion 2 l iab i l i ty .
C
Equa l ly and independen t ly p rob lema t ic fo r D r . Bevan is the ques t ion o f
an t i t rus t in ju ry . See , e .g . , Answe r B r . a t 40 -49 . To succeed in a c la im fo r
monopo l iza t ion o r i ts a t temp t , D r . Bevan mus t show no t on ly tha t he was ha rmed
by Me rcy ’s conduc t , bu t tha t the in ju ry he su f fe red invo lved ha rm to compe t i t ion .
See Brunsw ick Corp . v . Pueb lo Bow l -O -Ma t , Inc . , 429 U .S . 477 , 489 (1977 )
(“ [A ]n t i t rus t in ju ry . . . shou ld re f lec t the an t icompe t i t ive e f fec t e i the r o f the
v io la t ion o r o f an t icompe t i t ive ac ts made poss ib le by the v io la t ion .” ) ; E l l io t t
– 20 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 21
Indus . L td . P ’sh ip v . BP Am . Prod . Co . , 407 F .3d 1091 , 1125 (10 th C i r . 2005 )
( f ind ing no “an t i t rus t in ju ry because [ the de fendan t ’s conduc t ] has no adve rse
e f fec t on compe t i t ion o r consume rs” ) . A f te r a l l , i t is the “p ro tec t ion o f
compe t i t ion o r p reven t ion o f monopo ly [ ] wh ich is p la in ly the conce rn o f the
She rman Ac t ,” no t the v ind ica t ion o f gene ra l “no t ions o f fa i r dea l ing ,” wh ich a re
the sub jec t o f many o the r laws a t bo th the fede ra l and s ta te leve l . A reeda &
Hovenkamp , supra , ¶ 770 , a t 190 ; see a lso SCFC ILC , Inc . v . V isa USA , Inc . , 36
F .3d 958 , 972 (10 th C i r . 1994 ) (“The She rman Ac t u l t ima te ly mus t p ro tec t
compe t i t ion , no t a compe t i to r . . . .” ) .
The an t i t rus t v io la t ion D r . Bevan a l leges is Me rcy ’s re fusa l to g ran t h im
ac t ive med ica l s ta f f p r iv i leges , and by way o f remedy he asks us , in add i t ion to
damages and o the r th ings , to o rde r Me rcy to g ran t h im those p r iv i leges .
See Second Am . Comp l . , J .A . a t 60 . In do ing so , he does no t ask us to p reven t a
monopo ly o r b reak one apa r t . Ins tead , wha t he seeks is the chance to share in
Me rcy ’s pu ta t ive monopo ly . The d i f f icu l ty is tha t “ [w ]hen the monopo l is t is
fo rced to se l l [ to a compe t i to r ] , i t se ts the monopo ly p r ice and ove ra l l
compe t i t iveness is no t a f fec ted a t a l l ; we s imp ly have two f i rms sha r ing the
monopo ly ra the r than one .” A reeda & Hovenkamp , supra , ¶ 773 , a t 239 . Tha t is ,
even i f we we re to fo rce Me rcy to accommoda te D r . Bevan ’s demand , the hosp i ta l
cou ld s imp ly impose cos ts and cond i t ions on D r . Bevan ’s ac t iv i t ies tha t wou ld
p reven t h im f rom unde rcu t t ing the hosp i ta l ’s own neph ro logy p rac t ice . D r . Bevan
– 21 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 22
ve ry we l l migh t be be t te r o f f w i th such a sha red monopo ly , bu t the re ’s no
gua ran tee consume rs wou ld be . Wha teve r in ju ry he may have su f fe red , then , i t is
no t one the an t i t rus t laws p ro tec t because “a p roduce r ’s loss is no conce rn o f the
an t i t rus t laws , wh ich p ro tec t consume rs f rom supp l ie rs ra the r than supp l ie rs f rom
each o the r .” S tama tak is Indus . , Inc . v . K ing , 965 F .2d 469 , 471 (7 th C i r . 1992 ) .
D r . Bevan migh t rep ly tha t we cou ld o rde r Me rcy no t me re ly to sha re i ts
fac i l i t ies w i th h im , bu t a lso d ic ta te the te rms o f such an a r rangemen t in a manne r
l ike ly to he lp consume rs . The d i f f icu l ty w i th th is tack is tha t the Sup reme Cou r t
has recen t ly and repea ted ly reminded us tha t “ [c ]ou r ts a re i l l su i ted ‘ to ac t as
cen t ra l p lanne rs , iden t i fy ing the p rope r p r ice , quan t i ty , and o the r te rms o f
dea l ing . ’” Pac . Be l l Te l . Co . , 129 S . C t . a t 1121 (quo t ing Tr inko , 540 U .S . a t
408 ) ; see a lso Town o f Concord v . Bos ton Ed ison Co . , 915 F .2d 17 , 25 (1s t C i r .
1990 ) (B reye r , C .J . ) ( l is t ing many d i f f icu l t ques t ions tha t “show why an t i t rus t
cou r ts no rma l ly avo id d i rec t p r ice admin is t ra t ion , re ly ing [ ins tead ] on ru les and
remed ies . . . tha t a re eas ie r to admin is te r” ) . The fede ra l jud ic ia ry is no t a p r ice
con t ro l agency . As P ro fesso r A reeda has a rgued , and the Sup reme Cou r t has
a f f i rmed , “ [n ]o cou r t shou ld impose a du ty to dea l tha t i t canno t . . . adequa te ly
and reasonab ly supe rv ise .” Tr inko , 540 U .S . a t 415 (quo t ing A reeda , Essen t ia l
Fac i l i t ies , supra , a t 853 ) .
Th is isn ’ t to sugges t tha t i t ’s a lways and me taphys ica l ly imposs ib le to
d isce rn jud ic ia l ly admin is t rab le te rms on wh ich sha r ing migh t be manda ted . One
– 22 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 23
migh t a rgue , fo r examp le , tha t Sk i Co . ’s ex tens ive pas t cou rse o f dea l ing w i th
H igh lands Co rp . , toge the r w i th Sk i Co . ’s re fusa l to se l l to a compe t i to r a t i ts own
re ta i l p r ices , p rov ided a su f f ic ien t fac tua l founda t ion on wh ich a fede ra l cou r t
cou ld fash ion a jud ic ia l ly manageab le remedy . See A reeda & Hovenkamp , supra ,
¶ 772 , a t 223 -24 (desc r ib ing those fac ts as “ve ry c lose to d ispos i t ive” in Aspen
Sk i ing ) . Bu t , be tha t as i t may , no such compa rab le founda t ion is ev iden t he re .
D r . Bevan has neve r se rved on Me rcy ’s ac t ive s ta f f , on ly on i ts consu l t ing s ta f f .
The hosp i ta l ’s by laws have p rev ious ly fo rb idden consu l t ing s ta f f membe rs f rom
con t inu ing to o f fe r se rv ices a t the hosp i ta l when an ac t ive s ta f f membe r a r r ives .
And the re is no reco rd ind ica t ion tha t Me rcy has eve r had compe t ing ac t ive s ta f f
neph ro logy p rac t ices a t the hosp i ta l (ve ry much to the con t ra ry ) . A l l o f th is
sugges ts tha t , a t leas t in th is case , we wou ld do we l l to ab ide the Sup reme Cou r t ’s
admon i t ion tha t “ [a ]n an t i t rus t cou r t is un l ike ly to be an e f fec t ive day – to -day
en fo rce r o f . . . de ta i led sha r ing ob l iga t ions .” Tr inko , 540 U .S . a t 415 . 4
* * *
D r . Bevan ’s monopo l iza t ion and a t temp ted monopo l iza t ion c la ims fa i l as a
ma t te r o f law fo r a t leas t two independen t reasons : Me rcy ’s fa i lu re to sha re i ts
fac i l i t ies is ev idence o f compe t i t ive—no t an t icompe t i t ive—conduc t , and wha teve r
4 Because we a f f i rm the d is t r ic t cou r t ’s summa ry judgmen t fo r Me rcy , we
have no need to add ress D r . Bevan ’s sepa ra te a rgumen ts cha l leng ing the p rop r ie ty
o f the d is t r ic t cou r t ’s in t ra -d is t r ic t t rans fe r o f the case f rom Denve r to Du rango in
the even t o f a t r ia l .
– 23 –
Case: 08-1231 Document: 01018282167 Date Filed: 09/29/2009 Page: 24
in ju ry D r . Bevan may have su f fe red f rom h is exc lus ion f rom the hosp i ta l ’s s ta f f ,
i t is no t one tha t the an t i t rus t laws we re des igned to remedy . The d is t r ic t cou r t ’s
judgmen t is the re fo re
A f f irmed .
– 24 –