Johnson v. Nyack Hospital’s Empirical Analysis
964 F.2d 116 · 1992
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Davis v. New York (2002), Mathews v. Lancaster General Hospital (1996)
34 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 11101 (Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986) · 42 U.S.C. § 11112 · 42 U.S.C. § 11113
Relies on Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Andrijevic v. Kelleran
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he medical expertise of the [Council]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]ecause the PHC has the distinctive expertise to divine whether defendants had a legitimate medical reason for revoking Johnson's privileges, the PHC should make this determination before the district court considers the issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether defendants had a proper medical reason for terminating [the plaintiffs] surgical privileges will be dis-positive of [his] antitrust claims. Defendants supervise providers of medical care. In this role, defendants may take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that patients receive quality treatment. This includes the revocation of privileges of a health care professional whose services are regarded as inadequate or incompetent. Although revocation of a doctor’s privileges may, perforce, eliminate competition by decreasing the number of doctors in a given specialty, this alone will not give rise to an antitrust violation. Cf. Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir.1979) (company may protect its market position by normal competitive methods), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093 , 100 S.Ct. 1061 , 62 L.Ed.2d 783 (1980). Thus, [the plaintiff] cannot prevail on his antitrust claim if defendants had legitimate medical reasons to terminate his surgical privileges at [the hospital].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.