Opinion ID: 547003
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bucholz

Text: 45 In Smith v. Northern Michigan Hospitals, this court refused to dismiss the independent physicians' monopoly claim against Burns Clinic because [t]here is ... no evidence provided by the present record to contradict the appellants' allegations that competition exists between appellants and the Burns Clinic for referral patients from the NMH emergency room. 703 F.2d at 955. After the case was remanded for further proceedings as to Burns Clinic, the district court dismissed the remaining portion of the complaint against Burns Clinic by granting its motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed the dismissal because, among other reasons, the plaintiffs submitted no evidence from which the court could infer the defendant's general intent to monopolize. Nor did the plaintiffs submit evidence to rebut the defendant's explanations for the small number of post-merger referrals received by the plaintiffs. Smith v. Burns Clinic Medical Center, 779 F.2d 1173, 1176 (6th Cir.1985). Thus, the case was dismissed because the doctors did not, as they were required, rebut the defendant's legitimate explanations for the alleged anticompetitive conduct with 'significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.'  Id. at 1176 (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1593, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)). 46 Likewise, in this case, Dr. Beard has failed to rebut Bucholz's legitimate explanation for its anticompetitive exclusive agreement with Parkview. Parkview and Bucholz explained that their contract is necessary to enhance the quality of care its patients receive as well as improve the efficiency of the hospital. Through use of the exclusive contract, Parkview is able to monitor the radiologists to whom it grants staff privileges, negotiating on behalf of its patients the best available radiological care upon the expiration of each contract's term. 47 Dr. Beard has provided no significant probative evidence to rebut Bucholz's legitimate explanation for its agreement with Parkview. Dr. Beard questions only whether the contract was formally executed as of 1984, when he joined Bucholz, or whether it was signed in response to his filing this lawsuit in 1985. Assuming it was the latter, as Dr. Beard claims, the legitimate explanation Parkview and Bucholz provide for the contract remains unrebutted. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Bucholz on the section 2 claim because Dr. Beard failed to submit probative evidence which would 'require a judge or jury to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.'  Id. (citations omitted).