Tafford E. Oltz, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. St. Peter's Community Hospital, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

Good Law
19 F.3d 1312·94 Daily Journal DAR 3963·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5600·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2113
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 28, 199492-35538, 92-35562California1,323 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reavley, J.

In Oltz v. St. Peter’s Community Hosp., 861 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir.1988) we remanded this antitrust case for a new trial on damages. The trial court then determined that Oltz could not prove damages greater than the offsetting settlement sums he had already received and granted St. Peter’s Motion for Summary Judgment on damages. We reverse and remand for trial.

I. Background

Because we gave a detailed explanation of the facts in the former appeal, 861 F.2d at 1442-44 , we give only a brief description here.

Tafford Oltz, a nurse anesthetist, entered into a billing contract with St. Peter’s Community Hospital, the provider of 84% of the surgical services in the rural community of Helena, Montana. M.D. anesthesiologists at the hospital disliked competing with Oltz because he charged lower rates and many of the doctors preferred his services. In order to squeeze Oltz out of the market, the M.D. anesthesiologists obtained an exclusive contract with St. Peter’s on April 29, 1980, resulting in the cancellation of Oltz’s billing contract.

With the M.D. anesthesiologists firmly ensconced, Oltz was left with the vexing choice of either becoming a salaried employee of the doctor group in a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.