Richard A. Bolt and Richard A. Bolt, M.D., P.A. v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center

Eleventh Circuit

Richard A. Bolt and Richard A. Bolt, M.D., P.A. v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center

874 F.2d 755, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6632, 1989 WL 49525

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 16, 1989

Docket84-3256, 84-3603

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 874 F.2d 755 (Richard A. Bolt and Richard A. Bolt, M.D., P.A. v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard A. Bolt and Richard A. Bolt, M.D., P.A. v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 874 F.2d 755, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6632, 1989 WL 49525 (11th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 F.2d 755, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6632, 1989 WL 49525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-a-bolt-and-richard-a-bolt-md-pa-v-halifax-hospital-medical-ca11-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack