Charles B. Shane, M.D. v. Humana, Inc.
Charles B. Shane, M.D. v. Humana, Inc.
Opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Nos. 06-14222 & 06-14497 June 13, 2007 ________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN D. C. Docket Nos. CLERK 04-21589-CV-FAM & 00-01334-MD-FAM
CHARLES B. SHANE, M.D., JEFFREY BOOK, D.O., H. ROBERT HARRISON, M.D., GLENN L. KELLY, M.D., LEONARD J., KLAY, M.D., MARTIN MORAN, M.D., MANUEL PORTH, M.D., THOMAS BACKER, M.D., SUSAN HANSEN, M.D., ANDRES TALEISNIK, M.D., JULIO TALEISNIK, M.D., ROGER WILSON, M.D., MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA, FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, LOUISIANA STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
HUMANA, INC., COVENTRY HEALTH CARE, INC., HUMANA HEALTH PLAN, INC., PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. ________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________
(June 13, 2007)
Before CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and WALTER,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons set out in the
district court’s order granting summary judgment, which was filed on June 19,
2006, except that we do not reach the issue of whether the “plus factors”
requirement from antitrust law is applicable in civil RICO cases. Even if that
requirement is not applicable, the district court’s judgment is still due to be
affirmed under the facts and circumstances of this case.
AFFIRMED.
* Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished