| 词条 | Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society |ArgueDate=November 4 |ArgueYear=1981 |DecideDate=June 18 |DecideYear=1982 |FullName=Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society |USVol=457 |USPage=332 |ParallelCitations=102 S. Ct. 2466; 73 L. Ed. 2d 48 |Prior=643 F.2d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/643/553/454217/ 553] (9th Cir. 1980) |Subsequent= |Holding=The maximum fee agreements, as price-fixing agreements, are per se unlawful under § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. |SCOTUS=1981-1986 |Majority=Stevens |JoinMajority=Brennan, White, Marshall |Dissent=Powell |JoinDissent=Burger, Rehnquist |NotParticipating=Blackmun, O'Connor |LawsApplied=Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 }} Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332 (1982), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving antitrust law. A society of doctors in Maricopa County, Arizona, established maximum fees that their members could claim for seeing patients who were covered by certain health insurance plans. Arizona charged them with violations of state antitrust law regarding price fixing. The society tried to rebut the state's charges by claiming that the maximum-fee arrangement was necessary to allow doctors to see these patients, and therefore generated economic benefits. On appeal, the Supreme Court rejected this defense, saying that price fixing was not truly necessary here: the society could have used insurance to pool their risk. The society's efficiency justification was either a pretext, or else could have been done through less restrictive means. The Court held that their justifications failed as a matter of fact. FactsMaricopa County Medical Society, by agreement of their member doctors, established the maximum fees the doctors may claim in full payment for health services provided to policyholders of specified insurance plans. Arizona filed a complaint against MCMS in Federal District Court, alleging that they were engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. JudgmentIn a 4–3 decision, the court held that the maximum fee agreements, as price-fixing agreements, are per se unlawful under § 1 of the Sherman Act. SignificanceIn Maricopa, the Burger court deviated from the antitrust methodology based on the writings of Chicago School scholars Robert Bork and Richard Posner. In doing so, the court made "antitrust analysis once again confused and haphazard".[1] See also{{Slist rule of reason}}
Notes1. ^{{Citation |last=Gerhart |first=Peter M. |year=1982 |title=The Supreme Court and Antitrust Analysis: The (Near) Triumph of the Chicago School |journal=The Supreme Court Review |volume=1982 |issue= |pages=319–349 |doi= |jstor=3109560 }}. References
External links
| case = Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, {{ussc|457|332|1982|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/110747/arizona-v-maricopa-county-medical-soc/ | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/332/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep457/usrep457332/usrep457332.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-419{{SCOTUS-stub}} 8 : 1982 in United States case law|United States antitrust case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court|History of Maricopa County, Arizona|1982 in Arizona|Legal history of Arizona|American Medical Association |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。