Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-1007
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01486-CMH-TRJ)
Argued:
Decided:
the
the
Virginia
Board
of
Medicine
(the
Board)
practice
of
chiropractic,
Petrie
sued
the
Board,
its
Boards
her
sanctioning
had
any
anti-competitive
effects,
we
Assembly
osteopathic
It
medicine,
consists
physician
to
of
from
oversee
chiropractic,
eighteen
each
the
members,
congressional
practice
and
of
podiatry
including
district,
medicine,
in
Virginia.
one
one
medical
osteopathic
Va.
responsibilities,
Board
the
violated
Code
the
authority,
one
of
the
54.1-2911.
General
upon
Among
Assembly
finding
various
has
that
Virginia
other
powers
delegated
and
to
the
an
individual
has
laws
governing
the
penalty
or
terms
as
it
may
designate
and
to
suspend
any
Va. Code
54.1-2915(A).
Petries
attention
chiropractic
after
several
practice
of
her
came
to
patients
the
filed
Boards
complaints
[a
patient]
professional
who
into
could
believing
that
administer
she
[was]
medical
medical
Fat
Burning
Petrie
regulations
had
violated
governing
several
the
of
Virginias
practice
of
statutes
and
chiropractic.
Essentially, the Board found that Petrie had been misleading her
patients and practicing beyond the scope of her chiropractic
license
by
holding
herself
out
as
diet
and
nutrition
Type
II
diabetes
or
erectile
dysfunction,
and
by
J.A. 43841.
S.A. 192.
Petrie then
her
appeal
was
pending
in
the
Virginia
Court
of
against
court.
Boards
from
In
her
order
certain
her
by
filing
federal
reflects
markets
a
for
this
action
in
complaint,
Petrie
conspiracy
to
medical
federal
alleges
exclude
services,
in
district
that
the
chiropractors
violation
of
violates
the
Sherman
Act.
Appellants
Br.
at
43.
her
was
contrary
to
Virginia
law,
that
it
of
J.A. 1619).
the
Boards
competitors
like
chiropractors.
Id.
(quoting
conspired
to
adopt
an
improper
Petrie
appealed.
II.
This court review[s] de novo an award of summary judgment,
viewing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the
light
most
favorable
to
the
nonmoving
party.
Newport
News
Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423, 434
(4th Cir. 2011).
Civ. P. 56(a)).
The
burden
party
by
support
moving
showing
the
Architects,
that
nonmoving
L.P.
v.
for
summary
there
is
partys
Lessard
an
judgment
absence
case.
Design,
Inc.,
discharges
of
evidence
Humphreys
790
its
F.3d
&
to
Ptrs.
532,
540
(4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Kitchen v. Upshaw, 286 F.3d 179, 182
(4th Cir. 2002)).
showing
that
there
is
genuine
issue
for
trial.
Although
party,
the
nonmoving
party
must
rely
on
more
than
evidence.
antitrust
explain
how
claim
the
under
section
district
court
of
the
applied
Sherman
that
Act
framework
and
to
Then,
15 U.S.C. 1.
or
conspiracy,
in
restraint
of
trade.
Examiners
v.
Fed.
Trade
Commn,
717
F.3d
359,
371
(quoting Atl. Richfield v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 334
(1990)).
Here, the district court held that Petrie has met none of
those three requirements.
unreasonable
restraint
on
trade
because
she
has
shown
no
J.A. 61920.
contract,
to
combination,
establish
that
the
or
conspiracy
action
by
the
because
Board
and
she
its
J.A. 622.
And
Id.
B.
We address first whether the Boards order against Petrie
constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade.
whether
particular
agreement
in
restraint
To determine
of
trade
is
(1)
restraints,
per
(2)
se
analysis,
quick-look
for
obviously
analysis,
for
anticompetitive
those
with
some
The
Id.
validity
of
competition.
restraint
on
trade
is
its
impact
on
717 F.3d 359, 373 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Continental Airlines,
277
F.3d
at
509).
And
because
[t]he
antitrust
laws
were
of
single
competitor
standing
alone,
does
not
Va.,
Ltd.,
823
F.2d
829,
832
(4th
Cir.
1987)
(citations
omitted).
The district court found that the Rule of Reason analysis
was the appropriate mode to apply in this case.
We agree.
It
but
plaintiff
cannot
demonstrate
the
696,
708
(4th
Cir.
Recognizing
this,
Petrie
by
its
own
fiat
Appellants
Br.
at
26,
and
that
conduct,
Dr.
Petrie
anticompetitive
and
for
improper
[b]ut
for
and
other
purposes,
the
Boards
doctors
of
effects
Instead
on
of
competition
chiropractors
and
not
enough
to
withstand
motion
summary
judgment.
trade
by
sanctioning
Petrie
for
her
violations
of
the
standing
upon
private
individual
to
sue
for
12
whether
plaintiff
has
proven
valid
claim
under
&
Herbert
Hovenkamp,
Antitrust
Law
360f,
at
20203
the
reasons
stated
above,
we
affirm
the
district
13