Evening star., 1940-01-13
Antitrust Medical
Case Considered BY
Court Of Appeals
Arguments Concluded;
No indication When
Decision Will Come

consideration today the antitrust
medical case, in which arguments
were concluded yesterday afternoon.
On appeal from decision of JUS
tice James NJ Proctor, who had dis
missed an indictment against or
ganized medicine, the case was
heard by three jurists of the appeals
| body-Chief Justice D. Lawrence
Groner and Associate Justices Fred
M. Vinson and Justin Miller.
There was no indication today as
to when decision in the important
court battle may be expected. The
controversy involving organized
medicine, which is charged with boy
colt and restraint of trade against
Group Health Association. has been
going through the courts since 1888
and may reach the Supreme Court
of the United States.
May Appeal Further.
Thurman Arnold, Assistant Attor-
ney General in charge of antitrust
proceedings, and John Henry Levin,
also of the Department of Justice,
argued the Governments case on
appeal, while Seth w. Richardson
presented the principal argument
for organized medicine, John L.
Laskey appeared as counsel for one
of the individual defendants, Dr..
Prentiss Wilson ~
The defendants, whose demurrer
| to the Federal indictment was sus-
tanned by Justice Proctor, include
the American Medical Association,
the Medical Society of the District
of Columbia, the Harris County
(Tex) Medical Society, the WASH
ington Academy of Surgery and 81
individual doctors, including leaders
of the A. NJ. A. in Chicago, and
certain prominent physicians of the
District Medical Society.
Mr.. Arnold said afterward that
the Justice Department, if it lost
the case in the Court of Appeals
most certainly would appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States
Mr.. Richardson did not wish to
comment on what would happen
after a decision by the Court of
Appeals.
Interpretation Criticized.
| Mr.. Arnold insisted on a broader
Interpretation of the term restraint
of trade" than that fixed by JUS
tice Proctor, who had held that prac-
| tice of medicine was not a trade
within the meaning of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.
! For the doctors. Mr. Richardson
declared the medical profession was
not under jurisdiction of the act.
He charged the Government had
attempted to "distort" the act in
order to bring the medical profess
sion within its jurisdiction. If the
profession was to be considered
under the act, Mr. Richardson in
sisted it should then have the same
rights as those accorded by this
administration to unions in the
coal fields. The coal miners had
closed mines with strikes, but were
not prosecuted, Mr. Richardson said
In rebuttal, Mr.. Arnold said if the
medical profession wanted labor Or
CARNATIONS rights to collective bar
gaining, or even to strike, he saw
no reason why that would be a vio-
lation of the trust laws, but he in
sisted the alleged boycott of G. H. A
was violation of the law.
The Assistant Attorney General
quoted former Chief Justice Taft as
declaring restraints of trade should
be determined on the basis of defini-
ton in the common law. Mr.. Ar
mold went deep into common law
precedent to claim restraint of trade
could be applied to learned profess
sions
Dozens of Cases" Cited.
Referring to dozens of cases
where doctors have gone into court
and brought suits for damages or
their own responsibility, Mr.. Rich.
ardson said that the present case, ir
which G.. H. A. doctors were repre-.
sented by Government counsel, wa.
the only lease where doctors hac
bamboozled the Government int<
assuming the expense of pulling
chestnuts of private parties out ol
the fire."
Mr.. Levin opened the case for the
Government, declaring the appea
was based principally on the point
that the lower court had "erred ir
not giving a clear meaning of re.
straint of trade"
Mr.. Laskey insisted the indictment
was not specific in its charge:
against individuals, and so was ''in.
sufficient"
Mr.. Arnold concluded with thu
statement that the whole case boilec
down to whether the defendant!
conspired to stop IAN experimental
system of medical development" fol
! Americans of low income