Opinion ID: 2829043
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevant Geographic Market

Text: “The relevant geographic market is the area in which a potential buyer may rationally look for the goods or services he or she seeks.” Pa. Dental Ass’n v. Med. Serv. Ass’n of Pa., 745 F.2d 248, 260 (3d Cir. 1984). As Novak’s expert recognized, in 2005 more than 32% of patients from Somerset Hospital’s primary service area were admitted to Conemaugh, Meyersdale, and Windber Hospitals. As such, Novak’s attempt to define the relevant geographic market as only Somerset Hospital is illogical and inconsistent with the record. This conclusion is further supported by Novak’s own argument that Farrell sought to terminate Novak’s privileges at Somerset Hospital in part because “Farrell disapproved 5 As an example, when Somerset Hospital placed a moratorium on certain bariatric surgeries, Novak moved all of his bariatric surgeries to Conemaugh Hospital. 6 of Dr. Novak’s treatment of patients at Conemaugh because it reduced income to Somerset.” Appellant’s Br. at 6. This argument necessarily (and correctly) assumes that potential patients seeking the surgical services Novak provides would rationally look to both Somerset and Conemaugh Hospitals. Accordingly, Novak’s definition of the relevant geographic market is legally insufficient. When the relevant product and geographic markets are properly defined as including general/GI surgical services at Somerset and Conemaugh Hospitals, there is no evidence that Novak was shut out of the relevant market or that patient choice was restrained so as to demonstrate an actionable antitrust injury. See Mathews v. Lancaster Gen. Hosp., 87 F.3d 624, 641 (3d Cir. 1996). Because Novak failed to do so, we agree with the District Court that he lacks antitrust standing to pursue his claims and need not address the other antitrust standing factors.