Rocky Mountain Med. Mgmt., LLC v. LHP Hosp. Group, Inc. (Summary)

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE/ANTITRUST

Rocky Mountain Med. Mgmt., LLC v. LHP Hosp. Group, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00064-EJL (D. Idaho Sept. 30, 2013)

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted in part and denied in part a hospital’s motion to dismiss the tortious interference and antitrust claims of a consultant who sold his surgery center to a hospital.

The consultant owned a surgery center and a consulting company.  The hospital bought the surgery center and employed the consultant.  The consultant terminated his employment after a few years, and shortly thereafter, began pursuing the development of a new surgery center that would compete with the hospital.  The consultant contacted an anesthesia group that held an exclusive contract with the hospital to provide services at the new surgery center.  The anesthesia group also had a contract with the consultant’s consulting company in which the consulting company provided practice management and billing services to the group.  The hospital allegedly told the anesthesia group that it would terminate the exclusive contract it had with the hospital if the group did not terminate its contract with the consulting company.  Subsequently, the anesthesia group terminated its agreement with the consulting company.

The district court first examined the three tortious interference claims.  The court dismissed the tortious interference of a contract claim because the contract between the anesthesia group and the consulting company contained an “at-will” termination provision.  Thus, the termination of the contract itself cannot be considered a breach without other facts to support a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The court then turned to the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim, relative to the development of the new surgery center.  The court did not dismiss this claim, finding that it was reasonable to infer that the consultant was delayed in developing the surgery center because he lost revenue when the anesthesia group terminated the contract with the consulting company.  Finally, the court addressed the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim, relative to the termination of the contract between the anesthesia group and the consulting company.  The court did not dismiss this claim, rejecting the hospital’s argument that it was pursuing the legitimate purpose of attempting to eliminate a potential competitor.  The court found that the consulting company was not in competition with the hospital or its surgery center, so the hospital’s interference with the contract between the anesthesia group and the consulting company was not in pursuit of a legitimate business interest.

The court granted in part and denied in part the hospital’s motion to dismiss the antitrust claims. It dismissed the antitrust claims of the consulting company, holding that it lacked standing because it was not a consumer or participant in the market for surgical services.  However, the court did not dismiss the antitrust claims of the consultant, finding that the consultant was a potential participant in the surgical services market, and noted that he had owned and operated a surgery center in the past.