Evening star., 1940-01-12
Antitrust Medical
Case Argued as 10
Scope Of Application
Counsel for Doctors
Resists View ills
National Issue

Argument in the antitrust med
ical case got under way today before
the Court of Appeals with the issue
swinging to difference of opinion
as to whether the outcome will have
national or purely local signicance.
Assistant Attorney General Thur
man Arnold, in charge of the ad-
ministration antitrust campaign,
told the court a question of broad
social" significance was involved in
charges that the organized medical
profession had violated the Sher-
man act through a boycott against
Group Health Association of this
city.
Counsel for the defendant doctors
resisted the attempt of the Govern
ment counsel to make a national
and social" issue of the case.
Speaking for the doctors, Seth w.
Richardson declared: There is
nothing national about it,"
Mr.. Richardson insisted that
charges against the doctors were
specifically local and should be re-
stricted to what took place in the
District of Columbia. He charged
the Government with an attempt to
lay upon the doctors 'the burden of
a charge that we are opposing a
great social purpose"
Appeal From Proctor Ruling.
The case is before the Court of
Appeals on an appeal by the Gov
eminent from a decision by Justice
James M. Proctor in District Court,
who had upheld the doctors con-
tention. Justice Proctor had sus-
tanned a demurrer by the doctors
to an indictment returned by Fed
eral grand jury in December, 1898,
charging organized medicine with
restraint of trade" against Group
Health Association and its doctors
and IL Washington hospitals.
Justice Proctor in his decision,
which held that the antitrust law
could not be applied to the doctors
in this case, said the practice of
medicine is not trade.
Around this point much of the
argument before the Court of APP
peals today was centered. As
sistant Attorney General Arnold, in
appealing from Justice Proctor's
definition of restraint of trade,
pointed to several decisions by the
Supreme Court of the United States
which, he said, should indicate a
much broader" Interpretation of
trade to include the practice Of
medicine.
Spirited Reply Given.
Mr.. Arnold drew spirited reply
from doctors counsel by empha-
sizing case in another State
where a doctor, Mr. Arnold said,
had been thrown out of his medi-
ral society for charging half price
to people on relief"
The doctors are standing here
defending a boycott" charged the
Assistant Attorney General, for
the sole purpose of protecting their
fees"
Resentment at this charge came
from Mr.. Richardson, who claimed
the doctors would not yield to any
general charge that they were try
ing to deprive the poor of medical
care.
IF there is to be a conSumma-
ton of medical relief to poor peo-
ple," he declared. "the doctors will
be the ones to bring that relief to
the people
The doctors of this country give
$l000,000 a day in free medical care
to the public. Now the doctors are
pilloried here as standing in the
way of relief. There has been a
studied attempt on the part of the
Government to show that the ma
tional movement was standing in the
way of medical care and that these
doctors were malefactors.'
History of Case Outlined.
The case for the Government was
opened by John Henry Lewis, who
outlined the history of the case in
the charges against the defendants
The defendants are the American
Medical Association, the Medical
Society of the District of Columbia,
the Harris County Medical Society
of Texas and 81 individual doctors.
Sitting on the case were Chief
Judges D. Lawrence Groner of the
Court of Appeals, and Associate
Justice Fred NJ. Vinson and Justin
Miller
1t was expected argument would
be concluded some time today.