# Baptist Health v. Murphy

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · February 2, 2006 · 365 Ark. 115

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729058

## Case

- **Full name:** BAPTIST HEALTH v. Bruce E. MURPHY, M.D., Scott L. Beau, M.D., David C. Bauman, M.D., D. Andrew Henry, M.D., David M. Mego, M.D., and William A. Rollefson, M.D.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 2, 2006
- **Citations:** 365 Ark. 115; 226 S.W.3d 800
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Duncan
- **Judges:** Hannah, Boyd, Doss, Glaze, Duncan, Burnett, Corbin, Imber, Dickey, Gunter
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729058

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 disru…
- holding that trial court did not err in finding that hospital credentialing policy constituted a violation of the ADTPA

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729058. Public record. Not legal advice.