Opinion ID: 2165857
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Text: Baptist argues that the circuit court's findings as to a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act are insufficient to support the improper standard. The circuit court made the following findings: Frequently, there is a shortage of cardiac beds in the Little Rock area. During the period of December to May of each of the last four years, all or one of the hospitals in the Little Rock area were on diversion because of a shortage of critical care or cardiac beds. At times, there have been no beds at AHH, Baptist, or St. Vincent's hospital for up to 36 hours. Enforcement of the economic credentialing policy by Baptist would reduce the number of available beds for treatment of Plaintiffs' patients, with the inevitable consequence that it will from time to time happen in a critical life-or-death situation. The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark.Code Ann. § 4-88-107(a)(10), makes illegal any trade practice which is unconscionable, which includes conduct violative of public policy or statute. Defendant's economic credentialing policy is intended to require Plaintiffs to either divest themselves of their ownership interests in AHH or to have their relationships with their patients, who are required to use Defendant's facilities, disrupted or terminated. Therefore, the aforementioned economic credentialing policy appears to be in violation of the . . . Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Baptist disagrees with the circuit court's determination that the application of the Policy is unconscionable. [6] For their part, appellees state that the circuit court concluded that Baptist's use of the patients as pawns in its economic chess game with a facility it deems a competitor was unconscionable, and therefore unlawful under this provision. Appellees further assert that Baptist has the upper hand because of exclusive-provider contracts, and that Baptist's unconscionable conduct is demonstrated by the use of its power to disrupt the relationships between patients, who are at Baptist's mercy, with their physicians. We cannot say that the circuit court's findings are clearly erroneous, and we are not persuaded by Baptist's suggestion that an economic-credentialing policy applicable to board members, administration, and medical staff alike, cannot be unconscionable. We hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Baptist's conduct constituted a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and that such violation can satisfy the impropriety requirement for a claim of tortious interference.