State-Action Stops FTC Appeal To Enjoin Hospital Acquisition
The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to dismiss the FTC’s antitrust challenge to the proposed acquisition of Palmyra Park Hospital, Inc. (“Palmyra”) and the subsequent lease of Palmyra to Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. (“PPHS”) or one of its subsidiaries. As the district court did, the Eleventh Circuit predicated its decision on the state-action doctrine.
A subsidiary of PPHS currently leases Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital (“Memorial”), a 443-bed hospital in Albany, Georgia that offers “inpatient general acute-care services.” Memorial’s “only real competitor”—in the words of the Eleventh Circuit—is Palmyra, a 248-bed hospital offering similar services. In its opinion, the Eleventh Circuit stated that “Memorial controls 75 percent and Palmyra 11 percent of their geographic market.”
In December 2010, PPHS announced a plan to have a political subdivision, the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County (“Hospital Authority”), purchase Palmyra and lease Palmyra’s assets to PPHS or one of its subsidiaries. The City of Albany and Dougherty County authorities created the Hospital Authority in 1941 pursuant to Georgia’s Hospital Authorities Law, in order to address public health needs of the area.
In April 2011, the FTC brought a federal action to preliminarily enjoin the acquisition pending resolution of the FTC’s related administrative proceeding. In its complaint for a preliminary injunction, the FTC alleged that the proposed acquisition was practically a “merger to monopoly” that “threaten[ed] substantial harm to competition in the relevant market for inpatient general acute-care hospital services sold to commercial health plans.”
Defendants took the position that the state-action doctrine immunized the acquisition and planned operation of the hospitals from antitrust scrutiny. On this point, the FTC alleged that the Hospital Authority was merely a straw-man that was included in the transaction for the sole purpose of shielding the transaction from antitrust scrutiny.
The district court agreed with the defendants, finding that the state-action doctrine applied and therefore that the defendants were immunized from antitrust scrutiny. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The FTC appealed.
On de novo review, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the FTC that “the joint operation of Memorial and Palmyra would substantially lessen competition or tend to create, if not create, a monopoly.” However, the court affirmed dismissal on the grounds of state-action immunity.
The court began its analysis of the state-action doctrine by citing the seminal case of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) and the doctrine’s emphasis on principles of federalism. The court acknowledged that state-action immunity does not automatically extend to municipalities or political subdivisions. To resolve whether the Hospital Authority, the political subdivision at issue, was entitled to state-action immunity, the court applied the rule announced in FTC v. Hosp. Bd. Of Dirs. Of Lee Cnty., 38 F.3d 1184, 1187-88 (11th Cir. 1994) (citing Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34 (1985)) that “a political subdivision … enjoys state-action immunity if it shows that, ‘through statues, the state generally authorizes [it] to perform the challenged action’ and that, ‘through statutes, the state has clearly articulated a state policy authorizing anticompetitive conduct.’” Of interest, particularly given the FTC’s straw-man argument, the Eleventh Circuit did not cite or address the “active supervision” element of California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980) and its progeny, presumably due to the statement in Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34, 46 (1985) that “the active state supervision requirement should not be imposed in cases in which the actor is a municipality.”
Finding first, that Georgia’s Hospital Authorities Law contemplated the anticompetitive effects and conduct alleged in the complaint; second, that the state legislature granted hospital authorities the power to purchase or lease “projects” (i.e., hospitals); and third, that the state legislature “must have anticipated anticompetitive harm when it authorized hospital acquisitions by the authorities,” the court held that state-action immunity protects the proposed plan.
The appellate court rejected the FTC’s argument that the Hospital Authority acted as a mere straw-man by citing City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U.S. 365, 379 (1991) for the proposition that a court cannot scrutinize governmental actions to attempt to uncover “perceived conspiracies to restrain trade.” (internal quotes omitted).
The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., No. 11-12906, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.