Share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli - Antitrust Polsinelli - Antitrust


December 2014


Conspiracy? Ohio Federal Court Says No; Holds That Health System Joint Venture Is a Single Entity Incapable of Conspiring in Violation of the Sherman Act






For more information about this alert, please contact::


Mitchell D. Raup


Practice Area Vice Chair



Herbert F. Allen




Additional Antitrust
Practice Leaders:


P. John Brady

Practice Area Chair



Jennifer Gille Bacon

Practice Area Vice Chair




To view a full list of our Antitrust professionals, click here.


To learn more about our Antitrust practice, click here.


View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  
LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Inside Law Podcast Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook.



When competing health care providers affiliate by contract, rather than by merger or acquisition, they often face the challenge of structuring their joint activities to avoid liability under § 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts that unreasonably restrain trade. A recent court decision, The Medical Center at Elizabeth Place LLC v. Midamerica Health Systems Corporation, provides guidance on how providers can structure their joint venture to create a single entity rather than an ongoing conspiracy under § 1.

The case holds that where a joint operating agreement creates central system management and tight financial integration, including sharing of all the providers' income, profits and losses, the resulting hospital system is a single entity and its members are incapable of conspiring with each other in violation of the Sherman Act.

One important source immunity from claims of Sherman Act violation has been the Supreme Court's opinion in Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., which holds that a parent company and its wholly owned subsidiary are a single economic entity, and therefore are incapable of conspiring in violation of § 1. The Supreme Court later suggested in dicta that Copperweld may apply to corporate joint ventures, because "[w]hen 'persons who would otherwise be competitors pool their capital and share the risks of loss as well as the opportunities for profit . . . such joint ventures [are] regarded as a single firm competing with other sellers in the market.'" And one lower court decision applied Copperweld to a contractual joint venture (a hospital joint operating agreement), relying on the Court's instruction that "substance, not form, should determine whether a separately incorporated entity is capable of conspiring under § 1." Now, a new district court decision adds additional support for the proposition that parties can create a "single entity" purely through contract, without jointly owning assets or sharing liabilities.

The Medical Center at Elizabeth Place LLC v. Midamerica Health Systems Corporation: The Court Decision

Premier Health, a hospital system in southwest Ohio, was formed by a joint operating agreement among five independent hospitals. The hospitals remained separate corporations with their own assets, liabilities and governing boards, in part because some of them were Catholic hospitals that wished to retain their Catholic identity. However, the hospitals ceded operational, strategic, and financial control, including managed care contracting authority, to a joint management entity called Premier Health Partners.

The plaintiff, a small physician-owned hospital in Dayton, alleged that the hospital members of Premier Health conspired with each other to "deny Plaintiff access to supply (managed care contracts and physicians) and demand (physician referrals) that Plaintiff needed to compete." A threshold issue was whether the defendant hospitals could conspire with each other in violation of the Sherman Act. The hospitals argued that they could not, because Premier Health was a single entity.

In granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court emphasized elements of the joint operating agreement that showed control of the participating entities had been delegated to Premier Health. For example, the court noted that Premier Health "negotiates and enters into payor contracts that bind all of the Hospital Participants . . . and manages all relationships with payors, including managed care companies." "Not only is Premier a legitimate joint venture, but the challenged conduct in this case — managed care contracting and physician relations — is a core function of the Premier health system." The court concluded that the financial integration between the hospitals was so complete that the hospitals had ceased to be competitors of each other: "Defendants are not competitors because they are not separate economic actors — all of the money goes to one bottom line — the Network Net Income" which the hospitals shared pursuant to their joint operating agreement.

What Providers Need to Know

  • Health care providers that delegate all "operational, strategic, and financial control" to a joint venture manager via contract have the strongest argument that they are a single economic unit and therefore incapable of conspiring under § 1.
  • The fact that "there is no shared ownership of assets used in the Joint Venture" is "immaterial" to the Copperweld immunity question.
  • The participating entities can remain separately responsible for their respective debt, so long as the joint venture manager has authority to approve participants' incurrence of new debt.
  • The joint venture manager can and should be authorized to negotiate all managed care contracts for the participating providers.
  • The parties can and should share the income, profits and losses of the joint venture by agreeing on a formula to allocate the system's combined net income.

To download or print this alert, click here.

For More Information

The Premier Health case is pending on appeal, and the federal appeals courts have yet to endorse the approach taken by the trial court. Given the complexity of the issues and the scarcity of case law on point, obtaining advice from antitrust counsel remains important when structuring health care joint ventures, to avoid unnecessary litigation risk. If you have questions about how this decision or resulting appeals could affect your business, please contact the authors below, or a member of Polsinelli's Antitrust or Health Care practices.











Atlanta  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Edwardsville  Jefferson City  Kansas City  Los Angeles  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  St. Joseph  St. Louis  San Francisco  Springfield  Topeka  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington








real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is a first generation Am Law 100 firm serving corporations, institutions, entrepreneurs and individuals nationally. Our attorneys successfully build enduring client relationships by providing practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and with a passion for assisting General Counsel and CEOs in achieving their objectives. Polsinelli is ranked 18th in number of U.S. partners* and has more than 740 attorneys in 19 offices. Profiled by The American Lawyer and ranked as the fastest growing U.S. law firm over a six-year period**, the firm focuses on healthcare, financial services, real estate, life sciences and technology, energy and business litigation, and has depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* Law360, March 2014
** The American Lawyer 2013 and 2014 reports







Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2014 Polsinelli PC.

Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Polsinelli