Surgical Care Center of Hammond, L.C. v. Hospital Service District No. 1

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that proposed relevant market was improper where there was no attempt to identify (1) competing hospitals or clinics; or (2) where people could practicably go for the services at issue
• discussing the elements of an attempted monopolization claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act
• rejecting plaintiff’s similar argument because plaintiff did not show that Indiana Federation of Dentists is applicable to vertical restraints
• affirming summary judgment against antitrust plaintiff hospital that failed to define relevant geographic market
• finding proposed relevant market improper because expert did not attempt to identify competing hospitals or clinics and therefore did not analyze where people could practicably go for the services at issue
• “Absent a showing of where people could practicably go for inpatient services, St. Luke’s failed to meet its burden of presenting sufficient evidence to define the relevant geographic market.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).