Opinion ID: 770626
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Factor 5: Highly Speculative Damages

Text: 64 Faced with similar theories based on increased medical costs, Steamfitters held that the union funds' alleged damages were highly speculative and difficult to measure. See 171 F.3d at 928-29. The District Court found the same true of the Hospitals' antitrust claims. 65 We agree with the District Court that the Hospitals' alleged damages are speculative and uncertain. To quote Steamfitters: 66 [i]n order to calculate damages -- i.e., the costs not lowered due to the antitrust conspiracy -- the [Hospitals] must demonstrate how many smokers would have stopped smoking if provided with smoking- cessation information, how many would have begun smoking less dangerous products, how much healthier these smokers would have been if they had taken these actions, and the savings the [Hospitals] would have realized by paying out fewer claims for smoking-related illnesses. 67 Id. at 929. All these speculative calculations create a vast uncertainty about the Hospitals' damages, and leads us to question whether a remediable injury exists. 68 The Hospitals argue that they can calculate damages through aggregation and statistical modeling. 9 The union funds in Steamfitters made a similar argument, and it was rejected. See id. at 929 (we do not believe that aggregation and statistical modeling are sufficient to get the [plaintiffs] over the hurdle of the AGC factor focusing on whether the `damages claim is... highly speculative' ) (quoting AGC, 459 U.S. at 542). Both the union funds in Steamfitters and the Hospitals here have access to the same information base from which to calculate damages. In both contexts, that calculation is highly speculative. 69 Lastly, the Hospitals argue that difficulty in proving damages should not prevent the Court from remedying an injury, especially where statistical and aggregate evidence is well-accepted by courts to show damages and liability. Again, Steamfitters responds directly to this point when it notes that sometimes: 70 [a]ggregation and statistical modeling may be appropriate (though we need not decide that issue here) to allow plaintiffs to overcome the difficulty of proving the amount of damages.... In the present context, however, a finding of antitrust standing must precede a finding of liability, which itself precedes an assessment of damages. 71 Id. at 929 (citations omitted). Similarly, in this case standing must be determined first. 72