Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): assert that, in many of the class members’ cases, there was no “consumer transaction” because the debts arose from phy sician-patient transactions, and as such, Defendants are exempt from the OCSPA. Plaintiffs argue that the physician-patient exemption does not apply to Defendants. The OCPA’s physician exemption in the definition of “consumer transaction” is narrowly construed, and Ohio courts have rejected its application to non-physicians. See Summa Health Sys. v. Viningre, 140 Ohio App.3d 780, 749 N.E.2d 344, 356 (2000) (“While transactions with physicians are exempted from the CSPA, a transaction between a service provider such as a hospital and the consumer is not clearly exempted.”); Elder v. Fischer, 129 Ohio App.3d 209, 717 N.E.2d 730, 734-35 (Ohio Ct.App. 1st Dist.1998) (<HOLDING>); Thorton v. Meredia Suburban Hosp., 1991 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that antitrust claims arising out of an international commercial transaction were arbitrable despite the fact that they were not specifically mentioned in the arbitration clause (B) holding that physicians were specifically excluded from the ocspa but hospitals were not so they must abide by the ocspa (C) holding that this court can consider claims not specifically excluded by a coa (D) holding that all claims submitted by defendant were false because they were acquired by kickback (E) holding that because the record does not indicate that the extraneous documents or averments were excluded by the court  we must assume that they were considered
Output (English): holding that antitrust claims arising out of an international commercial transaction were arbitrable despite the fact that they were not specifically mentioned in the arbitration clause