Case ID: f-appx_228/html/0927-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles B. SHANE, M.D., Jeffrey Book, D.O., H. Robert Harrison, M.D., Glenn L. Kelly, M.D., Leonard J., Klay, M.D., Martin Moran, M.D., Manuel Porth, M.D., Thomas Backer, M.D., Susan Hansen, M.D., Andres Taleisnik, M.D., Julio Taleisnik, M.D., Roger Wilson, M.D., Medical Association of Georgia, Florida Medical Association, Louisiana State Medical Society, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HUMANA, INC., Coventry Health Care, Inc., Humana Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 06-14222, 06-14497
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 13, 2007.
    James B. Tilghman, Jr., Stewart, Tilghman, Fox & Bianchi, P.A., Miami, FL, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Charlene P. Ford, Whatley Drake, L.L.C., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Kathlynn Butler Polvino, William Bard Brockman, V. Robert Denham, John C. Patton, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Atlanta, GA, Edward Soto, Christopher R.J. Pace, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Stanley H. Wakshlag, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Miami, FL, Gregory S. Coleman, Lisa Royce Eskow, Marc S. Tabolsky, Carol A. Funk, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Austin, TX, Thomas C. Zielinski, Coventry Health Care Inc., Plymouth Mtng, PA, James W. Quinn, Jeffrey S. Klein, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons set out in the district court’s order granting summary judgment, which was filed on June 19, 2006, except that we do not reach the issue of whether the “plus factors” requirement from antitrust law is applicable in civil RICO cases. Even if that requirement is not applicable, the district court’s judgment is still due to be affirmed under the facts and circumstances of this case.

AFFIRMED.