Hahn v. Oregon Physicians' Service’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1011 (§ 1 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (§ 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1013 (§ 3 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 12 (§ 1 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 42 U.S.C. § 300E · 42 U.S.C. § 300K
Relies on Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital · California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. · Barrett v. United States · Group Life & Health Insurance v. Royal Drug Co. · McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Immunity from the antitrust laws is available when the anticompetitive activity is “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as a state policy,” and when that policy is actively supervised by the state itself. Defendants contend that a “clearly articulated state policy” supporting their treatment of podiatrists exists because the Oregon Legislature has refused to pass equality legislation for podiatrists, but has passed such legislation for others in the health care fields. The failure to enact proposed equality legislation is not alone enough to demonstrate a clear state policy favoring the inequality. As the Oregon Supreme Court stated . . . “Legislative inaction is a weak reed upon which to lean in determining legislative intent.” To be entitled to state action immunity, the state’s anticompetitive policy must be affirmative, not passive or inferential. Defendants have not demonstrated a clearly articulated state policy supporting their treatment of podiatrists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In my view, the qualifications of physicians, podiatrists, and other members of the healing arts, and the nature and extent of the services such persons may perform, are essential elements in the risk which health care insurance companies may legally define. Therefore, the defendants were privileged to determine that the care provided by podiatrists increased the risk over that of an M.D., for the same type of service. This is particularly true in Oregon, where there is no equality statute. I therefore hold that the decision of the defendants to limit their risk by imposing restrictions on podiatric care insurance qualifies as the “business of insurance” for purposes of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.