Judge David P. Davis Ruling

Re: Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati, et. al. v. Aetna Health, Inc., et. al.
Case No. A0204947

Dear Counselors,

Defendants separately filed Motions to Compel Arbitration and Motions to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings, including discovery, are overruled.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy of price fixing. This dispute does not arise out of or relate to the contracts between the Plaintiffs and Defendants, nor does it involve disputes about the parties business relationships. The parties never agreed to arbitrate claims that were independent of any breach of contract.

In this case, arbritration is a matter of contract. Considering one party is objecting thereto, the court shall not compel an arbitration for a dispute the parties did not agree, in advance, to arbitrate.

Defendants Joint Alternative Motion to Dismiss and to Stay Discovery is also overruled.

The association Plaintiffs, The Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati and the Butler County Medical Society meet the Hunt test for standing as party plaintiffs in the case. It is clear that (1)their members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, (2)the interest they seek to protect is germane to the organizations purpose, and (3)neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of their individual members.

The Valentine Act does apply to Plaintiff's claims. The Valentine Act does not only apply to tangible goods but may apply to intangibles, such as insurance and services. Therefore, the Valentine Act applies, generally, to trade or commerce, such as physicians' reimbursement rates.

The Valentine Act does provide a private right for injunctive relief and the court does have the authority to grant the injunctive relief requested by the Plaintiffs, if proven, without having to engage in setting reimbursement rates.

Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery is also overruled.

Pursuant to local rules, please present an entry reflecting the court's ruling, signed by all counsel, by January 31, 2003.

Realizing some of these issues may be subnject to appeal, I find there is no just reason for delay. I am rescheduling this matter for a status report on February 26, 2003 at 8:30.

Sincerely,
Judge David P. Davis