Insights
Firm News

Farella Braun + Martel Files Lawsuit to Hold Down Healthcare Costs

April 8, 2014 Announcement

Complaint alleges that Sutter engages in anticompetitive practices that result in overcharges of nearly 40% to employers for the same services offered by competing hospitals.   

San Francisco (April 8, 2014):  Farella Braun + Martel LLP today joined several other law firms in filing a class action complaint against Sacramento-based Sutter Health, alleging that Sutter engages in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the California Cartwright Act and the state Unfair Competition Law.  

“This is an important case for everyone concerned with the high cost of healthcare.  Sutter’s illegal actions have caused healthcare costs in San Francisco and throughout Northern California to be approximately 38% higher than the cost for the same medical services in Southern California, where Sutter has no hospitals,” said Farella lead attorney John L. Cooper.   

The case, UFCW & Employers Benefits Trust v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. 14-538451, (Link to Complaint) was filed on behalf of a class of “Self-Funded Payors,” also known as self-insured entities, which provide healthcare benefits to their employees.  These employers are typically larger businesses that paid Sutter’s higher prices when their employees used the services of any of Sutter’s 27 general acute care hospitals in Northern California.   

According to the complaint, Sutter has violated the law by prohibiting employers from knowing in advance the cost of particular procedures and from offering their employees incentives to choose Sutter’s lower-priced competitors..  Sutter’s practices maintain inflated prices insulated from competition by other hospitals.  Sutter also forces healthcare insurance providers to include all Sutter hospitals in their provider networks regardless of employer and patient preferences for only certain Sutter hospitals.  Together, these contracting practices unlawfully restrain competition and constitute price tampering in violation of California’s antitrust and unfair competition laws.  

The lawyers at Farella representing the plaintiffs include John L. Cooper, Roderick M. Thompson, Christopher C. Wheeler, Alex Reese, and Janice W. Reicher.  Richard L. Grossman of Pillsbury & Coleman is the lead attorney for the class, which is also represented by attorneys at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Davis Cowell & Bowe. 

Farella Braun + Martel represents clients throughout the United States and abroad in sophisticated business transactions and complex commercial, civil and criminal litigation. Farella lawyers are known for their imaginative legal solutions, dynamism and intellectual creativity. With an unwavering service ethic and interdisciplinary team approach, the firm is committed to advancing clients' objectives in the most effective, coordinated and efficient manner. Founded in 1962, Farella is headquartered in San Francisco and maintains an office in the Napa Valley focused on the wine industry. www.fbm.com 

Contacts: 
Melinda Hepp / Traci Stuart   
Blattel Communications    
415.397.4811     
[email protected] / [email protected]

Cheryl Loof
Farella Braun + Martel
415.954.4433
[email protected]

Resources

Firm Highlights

News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Named to 2023 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thirty-eight Farella Braun + Martel lawyers were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2023. 2023 Farella Northern California Super Lawyers: Carly Alameda – Business...

Read More
News

Farella Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 Edition

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
Publication

Disputes Between Shareholders May Not Be Governed by Fiduciary Duties but Could Be Covered by Insurance

(As published in Private Company Director ) Disputes regarding ownership interests often arise in the context of closely held corporations, particularly when directors, officers, or majority shareholders sell or acquire ownership interests in the...

Read More
News

Sarah Good Honored Among Most Influential Women in Bay Area Business

Read More
Publication

Top 5 Privacy Cases To Watch, From Chatbots to Geolocation

Litigation — and threats of litigation — related to privacy law violations have been on the rise recently. While some judges have pushed back on the theories set forth by plaintiffs, new privacy lawsuits...

Read More
Publication

Wire Fraud Victims Have New Reporting Factors After Ciminelli

Originally published by  Bloomberg Law . Courts around the country have seen an influx of challenges to indictments and convictions since the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in  Ciminelli v. United States  last May...

Read More
Publication

Reporting Dispute Claims Within Closely Held Wineries

Many wineries operate as closely held companies, meaning they’re owned by an individual or small group of shareholders, who are often members of the same family. Disputes regarding ownership interests can arise, particularly when directors...

Read More
Publication

Compelling Employees to Arbitration Suddenly Has Less of an Upside

On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs Inc., as to whether employees still have standing to sue for "non-individual" PAGA claims when they have been...

Read More
News

Litigators Strategically Deploy Remote Depositions

Karen Kimmey was quoted in Law.com's The Barometer newsletter article "Litigators Strategically Deploy Remote Depositions." Read the full article here (subscription may be required)

Read More