West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. v. UPMC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the complaint plausibly alleged that a “conspiracy resulted in increased premiums and reduced output in the market for health insurance”
• concluding that, if the insurer had been “acting alone, [the health care provider] would have little basis for challenging the reimbursement rates[, and a] firm that has substantial power on the buy side of the market (i e., monopsony power
• explaining that a defendant may raise an affirmative defense in the context of Rule 12(b)(6) if the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint
• finding allegations of a letter between the defendants and the CEO’s admission of concerted action against the plaintiff as adequate allegations of direct evidence on the agreement element
• stating that if defendant had been acting alone, Plaintiff “would have little basis for challenging the reimbursement rates” because “[a] firm that has substantial power on the buy side of the market (i.e., monopsony power
• sustaining complaint that hospital system and health insurer conspired to suppress reimbursement rates paid to healthcare providers

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).