Court Opinion

ID: 2964712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:59.597171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:59.965332
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2047 

                              JAMES BENJAMIN, JR., M.D.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                     THE AROOSTOOK MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            James Benjamin, Jr., M.D. on brief pro se.
            _________________________
            Christopher  D.   Nyhan,  Penny  Littell,   and  Preti,  Flaherty,
            _______________________   ______________         _________________
        Beliveau & Pachios, LLC on brief for appellees.
        _______________________

                                 ____________________

                                     May 9, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Appellant James  Benjamin, Jr.,  M.D.
                      __________

            appeals  from the  decision  of the  district court  granting

            summary judgment  to appellees, The  Aroostook Medical Center

            ("TAMC") and various physicians  associated with TAMC.  After

            carefully reviewing  the record  and the parties'  briefs, we

            affirm  the district  court's  judgment  for essentially  the

            reasons stated in its  published opinion reported at Benjamin
                                                                 ________

            v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., 937 F.Supp. 957 (D.Me. 1996).  We add
               ___________________

            the following comments.

                      1.  Appellant's claim that the individual appellees

            conspired to restrain trade in violation  of 15 U.S.C.   1 is

            analyzed under the "rule of reason."  See Flegel v. Christian
                                                  ___ ______    _________

            Hosp., Northeast-Northwest,  4 F.3d 682, 686  (8th Cir. 1993)
            __________________________

            (the  courts   of  appeals  usually  review   the  denial  or

            revocation  of  hospital   privileges,  especially  in  cases

            involving  individual  determinations of  incompetence, under

            the  rule of  reason)  (citing cases).    We agree  that  the

            appellant did  not make any  showing of harm  to competition,

            either directly  or by  reasonable inference.   Thus, summary

            judgment  was appropriate.   See  Rebel  Oil Co.  v. Atlantic
                                         ___  ______________     ________

            Richfield Co., 51  F.3d 1421, 1435 (9th  Cir.), cert. denied,
            _____________                                   ____________

            116 S.Ct. 515 (1995).

                      2. Because the facts upon which appellant bases his

            claim  of discrimination  concerning  his contract  with TAMC

            occurred after 1991,  the claim is cognizable under 42 U.S.C.

                                         -2-

               1981.   See    1981(b).   After  reviewing the  record and
                       ___

            appellant's  arguments  on  appeal,  however,  we  find  that

            appellant  has   failed  to  show   that  TAMC  intentionally

            discriminated against  him based  on  his race.   See  Ayala-
                                                              ___  ______

            Gerena  v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86, 95 (1st Cir.
            ______     ________________________

            1996). 

                      3.  Appellant's claim of malicious abuse of process

            is barred by the  doctrine of res judicata.  Under Maine law,

            res judicata  bars the relitigation  of issues that  were, or

            could  have been, decided in a prior  case if:  "(1) the same

            parties  or their privies are involved in both actions; (2) a

            valid final judgment was entered in the prior action; and (3)

            the matters  present for  decision  now were,  or might  have

            been,  litigated in the prior  action."  Currier  v. Cyr, 570
                                                     _______     ___

            A.2d 1205, 1208 (Me. 1990).

                      In  1996,  the  Maine  Supreme  Judicial Court,  on

            appeal from  a lower  court's decision adverse  to appellant,

            held  that TAMC  was immune  from appellant's state  law tort

            claims  concerning  the peer  review  process.   Benjamin  v.
                                                             ________

            Aroostook  Medical  Ctr.,  Law  Docket  No.  Aro-95-569  (Me.
            ________________________

            November 14, 1996).   In so holding, the court  relied on the

            federal  Health Care  Quality Improvement  Act, 42  U.S.C.   

            11101-11152, and  the state Health Security  Act, 24 M.R.S.A.

                2501-2511.    Appellant's  claim  in  the  case at  hand,

            although not precisely articulated,  also centers on the peer

                                         -3-

            review process -- i.e., the filing by TAMC of allegedly false

            reports  with the  National  Practitioner Data  Bank and  the

            Maine State Medical Board.

                      Res judicata  applies to  the case at  hand because

            the parties to  both the  state and federal  actions are  the

            same and  the Supreme Judicial  Court's decision  is a  valid

            final judgment.   Further, there is  no reason why  appellant

            could not have litigated in the state action the claim he now

            presents.  The  fact that  the state action  was premised  on

            state  tort law  while  the federal  case  was based  on  the

            Constitution does not matter.  Currier, 570 A.2d at 1205.
                                           _______

                      For  the  foregoing  reasons, the  judgment  of the

            district court is affirmed.
                              ________

                                         -4-