1) Read the case study (“Contract Violates Antitrust Laws”) on pages 100-101 in the textbook and answer the two discussion questions.
2) Write a paper (1,000-1,500 words) that addresses the discussion questions. Include a detailed rationale for your answers.
3) Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
4) This assignment uses a grading rubric. Instructors will be using the rubric to grade the assignment; therefore, students should review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion of the assignment.
 
Citation: Oltz v. St. Peter’s Community Hosp.,
 
 
 
 
 
 
19 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir. 1994)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Facts
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Oltz, a nurse anesthetist, brought an antitrust
 
 
 
action against physician anesthesiologists and St.
 
 
 
Peter’s
 
 
 
Community Hospital after he was terminated.
 
 
 
Oltz had a billing agreement with the hospital,
 
 
 
which provided 84% of the surgical services
 
 
 
in the rural community that it served. The anesthesiologists
 
 
 
did not like competing with the nurse
 
 
 
anesthetist’s lower fees and, as a result, entered
 
 
 
into an exclusive contract with the hospital on April
 
 
 
29, 1980, in order to squeeze the nurse anesthetist
 
 
 
out of the market. This resulted in cancellation of
 
 
 
the nurse anesthetist’s contract with the hospital.
 
 
 
Oltz filed a suit against the anesthesiologists and
 
 
 
hospital for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
 
 
 
15 U.S.C. § 1. The anesthesiologists settled for
 
 
 
$462,500 before trial.
 
 
 
The case against the hospital proceeded to trial.
 
 
 
The jury found that the hospital conspired with
 
 
 
the anesthesiologists and awarded the plaintiff
 
 
 
$212,182 in lost income and $209,649 in future
 
 
 
damages. The trial judge considered the damage
 
 
 
award to be excessive
 
 
 
and ordered a new trial.
 
 
 
The hospital motioned the court to exclude all
 
 
 
damages after June 26, 1982, which was the date
 
 
 
that the hospital renegotiated its exclusive contract
 
 
 
with the anesthesiology group. The court decided
 
 
 
that Oltz failed to prove that the renegotiated contract
 
 
 
also violated antitrust laws, thus ruling that
 
 
 
Oltz was not entitled to damages after June 26,
 
 
 
1982. Because
 
 
 
Oltz conceded that he could not
 
 
 
prove damages greater than those offset by his
 
 
 
settlement
 
 
 
with the physicians, his claim for damages
 
 
 
against the hospital was disposed of by summary
 
 
 
judgment.
 
 
 
The judge who presided over Oltz’s request for
 
 
 
attorneys’ fees restricted the amount that he could
 
 
 
claim. Because Oltz had been denied damages
 
 
 
from the hospital, the judge refused to award attorneys’
 
 
 
fees or costs for work performed after the
 
 
 
1986 liability trial.
 
 
 
 
 
Issue
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Was Oltz entitled to seek recovery for all damages
 
 
 
resulting from destruction of his business after
 
 
 
June 26, 1982?
 
 
 
 
 
Holding
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
 
 
held that Oltz was entitled to seek recovery for all
 
 
 
damages.
 
 
 
 
 
Reason
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Oltz introduced evidence that the initial exclusive
 
 
 
contract violated antitrust laws and that such
 
 
 
violation destroyed his practice. “Because the initial
 
 
 
conspiracy destroyed his practice, Oltz is entitled
 
 
 
to seek recovery for all damages resulting from the
 
 
 
destruction of his business. . . . The legality of any
 
 
 
subsequent agreements between the conspirators
 
 
 
is irrelevant, because the April 29, 1980, contract
 
 
 
severed the lifeline to Oltz’s thriving practice. . .”
 
 
 
Discussion
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. What should parties to a contract be aware of
 
 
 
when negotiating exclusive contracts?
 
 
 
2. What remedies are available when one party
 
 
 
breaches a contract by refusing to perform an
 
 
 
agreed-upon service?
 
“WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH HOMEWORK AIDER AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
The post Otiz v. St. Peter’s Case Study appeared first on Homeworkaider.


What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."


"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"