holding that there was no clear error in the lower court finding a violation of the ADTPA when patients of a hospital were being indirectly harmed by the 29 hospital’s policy that denied practitioners staff appointments for holding an interest in a competing hospital
How later courts described this case
- holding that there was no clear error in the lower court finding a violation of the ADTPA when patients of a hospital were being indirectly harmed by the 29 hospital’s policy that denied practitioners staff appointments for holding an interest in a competing hospital
- holding that a hospital’s policy of denying privileges to physicians holding ownership interests in competing hospitals was properly determined by the trial court to be unconscionable under the ADTPA
- holding that judicial review is appropriate as to private-hospital action where there has been a finding that Arkansas law had been violated
- affirming as unconscionable for ADTPA purposes a hospital’s policy of denying practice rights to physicians who held ownership interests in another local hospital, where the defendant hospital had the “upper hand because of exclusive-provider contracts” and the “power to disrupt the relationships between patients, who are at [the hospital’s] mercy, with their physicians”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Xollie Duncan, Special Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s finding that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Baptist’s conduct constituted a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. I would conclude that the impropriety requirement for a claim of tortious interference was not met and I would reverse the circuit court’s finding that Appellees have shown a likelihood to succeed on the merits.
Special Justice Jim Burnett joins the dissent.