RICHARD A. BOLT AND RICHARD A. BOLT, M.D., P.A., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
HALIFAX HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The en banc court vacated its prior discussion of the state action exemption because the appellees waived their claim to immunity. The panel opinion is reinstated with that exception.
The case was reheard en banc to consider antitrust liability exemption under the state action doctrine. During oral argument, the appellee hospitals a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Active State Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
We granted rehearing en banc in this case, see Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 861 F. 2d 1233 (11th Cir.1988), to consider whether the appellee hospitals and their medical staffs were exempt from federal antitrust liability under the state action doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94, 108 S.Ct. 1658, 100 L.Ed.2d 83 (1988). A panel of this court had answered this question affirmatively, concluding that Florida’s regulatory scheme, which provided for probing judicial review of peer review board decisions regarding medical staff privileges, constituted “active state supervision” sufficient to invoke Parker’s state action exemption. See Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 851 F. 2d 1273, 1282 (11th Cir.1988).
In oral argument before the en banc court, the appellee hospitals and their medical staffs formally withdrew any claim that they were immune from antitrust liability under the state action exemption. Thus, whether or not the defendants are entitled to immunity under Parker’s state action exemption, they now have clearly waived that immunity in this case. Since we granted rehearing solely to consider this issue, further consideration of the case by the en banc court is unnecessary.
The court therefore reinstates the panel opinion, see Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 851 F. 2d 1273 (11th Cir.1988), with the exception of the opinion’s discussion of the state action exemption, see id. at 1279-84, which remains vacated and without precedential value. The case is thus remanded to the panel, which shall reconsider its decision in light of the hospitals’ and medical staffs’ waiver of immunity and the parties’ outstanding petition for rehearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 891 F.2d 810 (11th Cir. 1990)…TJOFLAT, Chief Judge: We reconsider this case in light of the en banc court’s opinion in Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 874 F. 2d 755 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc). In that opinion, the en banc court reinstated part of our earlier panel opinion, Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 851 F. 2d 1273 (11th Cir.1988). The portion discussing whether the appel-lees were exempt from federal…1 / 2
-
Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 980 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1993)…dingly, the en banc court did not decide the immunity question and remanded to the panel with an instruction to reconsider the case in light of the hospital’s and medical staff’s waiver of state-action immunity. Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 874 F. 2d 755 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc) (Bolt II). Upon remand to the panel, HHMC argued that it was a state agency under Parker and thus immune from antitrust liability, or alternatively, that it was a municipality immune from antitrust liability under the Sup…
-
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Univ. Health, Inc., 938 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1991)…sion. (In support of their alternative argument, the appellees cite our vacated opinion in Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 851 F. 2d 1273, 1282 (11th Cir.), vacated, reh’g granted, 861 F. 2d 1233 (11th Cir.1988) (en banc), reinstated, in part, 874 F. 2d 755 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc), vacated and rev’d, 891 F. 2d 810 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1960, 109 L.Ed.2d 322 (1990), despite our clear direction that the state-action discussion in that opinion "remains vacated and without preced…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1943)
- Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1955)
- Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1988)
- Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 851 F.2d 1273 (11th Cir. 1988)
- William T. Connolly and Lizabeth v. Connolly, 861 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1988)