Zorel Tilson v. State of Arkansas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that individual health care plan subscriber could sue health care provider for antitrust injury resulting from provider’s alleged boycott of psychologists
• holding that individual health care plan subscriber could sue health care provider for antitrust injury resulting from provider's alleged boycott of psychologists
• holding that a subscriber to a health plan who had employed the services of a psychologist alleged a redressable antitrust injury
• concluding that the fact that the goal of the conspiracy was to injure psychologists did not make the subscriber’s injury “remote”
• holding that non-competitor’s injury was an antitrust injury as it was “inextricably intertwined with the injury the conspirators sought to inflict”
• holding that insurer’s practice of reimbursing members for psychiatrist treatment but not psychologist treatment constituted an antitrust violation in which members were directly injured because they were unable to obtain their treatment of choice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).