Medical Diagnostic v. Independence Blue Cross - Complaint

JS 44
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP
1 of 28
Page
CIVIL COVER SHEET
(Rev. 07/16)
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM)
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS
I.
as
DEFENDANTS
(a) PLAINTIFFS
Independence Blue Cross;

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC

2439 Kuser Road
Hamilton, NJ 08690
Mercer
(EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
NOTE:
Attorneys (If Known)
(10 Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Richard L. Scheff,
Philadelphia, PA
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
County
Esquire
Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP

123 South Broad Street, Phila,, PA 19109; 215-772-1500
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an
O 1
ot 2
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
U.S. Government
0 4
"X" in One Box
Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff
and One Box for Defendant)
(For Diversity Cases Only)
Only)
PTF
a
Party)
DEF
PTF
DEF
Incorporated
or
Principal Place
0 4
0 5
0 6
0 6
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenslnp ofParties
Defendant
0 1
Citizen of This State
in Item
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
III)
Citizen
or
Subject
0 3
of a
Foreign Nation
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an

O 110 Insurance
O 120 Marine
O 130 Miller Act
O 140 Negotiable Instrument
O 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement ofJudgment
O 151 Medicare Act
O 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
O 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
O 160 Stockholders' Suits
O 190 Other Contract
O 195 Contract Product Liability
O 196 Franchise
PERSONAL INJURY
0 310
0 315
Airplane
Airplane Product
Liability
0 320 Assault, Libel &

Slander
0 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
0 340 Marine
0 345 Marine Product
Liability
0 350 Motor Vehicle
0 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
0 360 Other Personal
Injury
220 Foreclosure
Rent Lease & Ejectment

Torts to Land
Tort Product Liability
All Other Real Property
Accommodations
0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities
Employment
0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities
Other
0 448 Education
V. ORIGIN (Place an
O 1
Original
Proceeding
"X" in One Box
0 625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
0 690 Other
PERSONAL INJURY
0 365 Personal Injury
Product Liability
0 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
0 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
0
0
0
0
0 550 Civil Rights
0 555 Prison Condition
0 560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of
Confinement
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED
IF ANY
Security Act
Corrupt Organizations
861 HIA (1395f0

862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
0 480 Consumer Credit

0 490 Cable/Sat TV
0 850 Securities/Commodities/
865 RSI
0
0
0
0
(405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITSs

0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or
Defendant)
Act
State Statutes
IMMIGRATION
0 4 Reinstated
Reopened
or
Conspiracy
(See instructions):
or
0 5 Transferred from
Another District
0 6
Multidistrict
AMOUNT
Litigation
Direct File
Transfer
(sPec()
filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversi6):
to Restrain Trade in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act

CHECK YES
DEMAND
only
if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND:
DOCKET NUMBER
JUDGE
APPLYING IFP
0 8 Multidistrict
Litigation
Esquire
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT It
893 Environmental Matters

895 Freedom ofInformation
0 462 Naturalization Application

0 465 Other Immigration
Actions
/s/ Richard L. Scheff,
11/10/2016
Exchange
Statutory Actions
Agricultural Acts
890 Other
891
0 896 Arbitration
0 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
0 950 Constitutionality of
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
DATE
430 Banks and Banking

450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
SOCIAL SECURITY
0
0
0
0
0
0 871 IRSThird Party

26 USC 7609
Remanded from
CI CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
CASE(S)
Income
Appellate Court
15 U.S.C. Section 1
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief
description of cause:
Contract Combination
IN
0
0
0
0
0 820 Copyrights
0 830 Patent
0 840 Trademark
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
(11( 410 Antitrust
Only)
0 2 Removed from
State Court
REQUESTED
3729(a))
28 USC 157
0 400 State Reapportionment
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are
VII.
0 375 False Claims Act

0 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

0 423 Withdrawal
PROPERTY RIGHTS:
jvADOR
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
0 370 Other Fraud
0 720 Labor/Management
0 371 Truth in Lending
Relations
0 380 Other Personal
0 740 Railway Labor Act
Property Damage
0 751 Family and Medical
0 385 Property Damage
Leave Act
Product Liability
0 790 Other Labor Litigation
o 791 Employee Retirement
PRISONER PETITIONS
0
OTHER STATUTES
ANKRUPTCY
URE1PENALTY
0 440 Other Civil Rights

0 441 Voting
0 442 Employment
0 443 Housing/
210 Land Condenmation
230
240
245
290
Only)
0 362 Personal Injury

Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS'
REAL PROPERTY
0
0
0
0
0
0
"X" in One Box
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
V Yes
0 No
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
Page
2 of 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
assignment to appropriate calendar.
DESIGNATION FORM
2439 Kuser Road, Hamilton, NJ
Address of Plaintiff:
to be used
1901 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
Place of Accident, Incident
or
(Use Reverse Side
case
case
for the purpose of
19103
For Additional
Space)
nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning
(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form

Does this
category of the
Pennsylvania
Transaction:
to indicate the
08690
Address of Defendant:
Does this civil action involve
by counsel
in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.
7.1(a))
involve multidistrict litigation possibilities?
10%
or more
YesD
Nolil
Yeso
No ff
of its stock?
RELATED CASE, IF ANY:
Civil
cases are
1. Is this
case
deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:

related to property included in
2. Does this case involve the

action in this court?
3. Does this
Date Terminated:
Judge
Case Number:
case
involve the
same
issue of fact
validity
or
earlier numbered suit
an
or
grow out of the
infringement
of a patent
terminated action in this court?
4. Is this
CIVIL:
case a
(Place
second
or
successive habeas corpus, social
111 ONE CATEGORY
previously terminated action in this court?

NoTh
Yes0
a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated
pending or within
same
transaction
as
one
year
NA
Yes0
already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously
Nol
YesEl
security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?
Yes0
ONLY)
Federal Question Cases:
A.
Nod(
B.
Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
1.
Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
1.
Indemnity Contract,
2.
FELA
2.
Airplane Personal Injury
Jones Act-Personal
3.
Assault, Defamation
4.
Marine Personal
Patent
5.
Motor Vehicle Personal
Labor-Management Relations
6.
Other Personal
7.
Products
Liability
Corpus
8.
10
Products
Liability
Securities Act(s) Cases
9.
All other
3.
4.
EXAntitrust
5.
6.
7.
Civil
8.
Habeas
9.
Injury
Rights
10.
Social Security Review Cases
11.
CI
All other Federal
Question
Injury
Injury
Injury (Please specify)

Asbestos
Diversity
Cases
(Please specify)
Cases
(Please specify)
El
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(Check Appropriate Category)
Richard L. Scheff, counsel of record do hereby certify:
the damages recoverable in this
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief,
civil action case exceed the sum of
$150, 000.00 exclusive of interest and costs;

0 Relief other than monetary damages is sought.
November
DATE:
10, 2016
/s/ Richard
L.
35213
Scheff
Attorney I.D.#
Attorney-at-Law
NOTE: A trial de novo will be
certify that, to
my
knowledge,
the within
case
is not related to any
trial
by jury only
case now
if there has been
pending
or
within
one
compliance with
year
F.R.C.P. 38.
previously terminated
action in this court
except as noted above.

DATE:
November 10,
2016
/s/ Richard
Attorney-at-Law
CIV. 609
(5/2012)
L.
Scheff
35213
Attorney I.D.#
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
Page
3 of 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM

Medical
Diagnostic
CIVIL ACTION
Laboratories
v.
Independence Blue Cross;

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings:
NO.
Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for

Case
a
shall
Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
complete
plaintiff
filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1:03 ofthe plan set forth on the reverse
side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on
the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track
to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
In accordance with the Civil Justice
SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:

Cases
brought under 28
U.S.C.
2241
through
2255.
(a)
Habeas
(b)
Social Security Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health

and FIuman Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.
(c)
Arbitration
(d)
Asbestos Cases involving claims for personal

exposure to asbestos.
Corpus
Cases
required to be designated for arbitration under Local

injury
or
Civil Rule 53.2.
property damage from
(e) Special Management Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.)
(f) Standard Management
November
10, 2016
Date
215-772-1500
Telephone
(Civ. 660) 10/02
Cases that do not fall into any
/s/
Richard L.
Scheff
Attorney-at-law
215-772-7620
FAX Number
one
(X
of the other tracks.
Medical Diagnostic Laboratories
Attorney for
rscheff@mmwr.com
E-Mail Address
Document 1
Filed 11/10/16
4 of 28
Page
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Medical
Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC,

Plaintiff,
Case No.
v.
Independence Blue Cross; and Laboratory

Corporation of America Holdings
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
its
Plaintiff, Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC ("MDL"), by and through
undersigned attorneys
for its
Complaint against Independence
Blue Cross
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings ("LabCorp"), alleges

otherwise upon information and belief,
as
on
its
("IBC")
and
knowledge and
follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is
1.
lawsuit to
recover
damages, including treble damages under the
laws of the United States, that MDL suffered at the hands of IBC's and
collusive efforts to eliminate
competition
from
providers
of laboratory
antitrust
LabCorp's illegal
testing services, including
MDL, in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Specifically,
2.
laboratory testing
gynecological
"in-network"
IBC and
have colluded to prevent
LabCorp
services for infectious disease
infections
providers
(collectively, "STIs")
companies providing
testing including sexually transmitted
in Southeastern
of services to IBC's insureds.
Pennsylvania
from
and other
becoming
an
Document 1
In
3.
of-network"
competing
addition, IBC refuses
providers
of
in Southeastern
Filed 11/10/16
provide reimbursement
to
laboratory testing such
as
for services
5 of 28
provided by "out-
MDL, effectively excluding them from
where IBC has
Pennsylvania
Page
dominant market share of the health
insurance market.
insurance makes it
be
effectively impossible
for doctors and other
economically viable without in-network
network
Pennsylvania market for health
IBC's dominant market power in the Southeastern
4.
providers
competitors
referring
reduced
Pennsylvania,
STI
of medical services to
consumer
prevent in-
concert to
in the market for STI
and
and other
to MDL
laboratory testing
injured competition
of Lab Corp, Defendants have
services in Southeastern
By acting in
status with IBC.
of medical services from
providers
physician
laboratory
choice for those
services.
laboratory services, and lowered the quality of available laboratory
5.
market power in
Lab Corp,
6.
privately
alleged herein
The purpose and effect of Defendants' acts
laboratory testing services, including
STI
laboratory testing services,
injuring competition for the provision of such services in

MDL, which
was
founded in 1997 and employs
held infectious disease clinical
certified under the Clinical
laboratory located
has been to confer
Southeastern
approximately
in
on
Pennsylvania.
670
people,
is
Hamilton, New Jersey and
Laboratory Improvement Amendments,
In
42 U.S.C.
263a.
DNA-based
molecular
addition, MDL is accredited by the College of American Pathologists.

7.
high-complexity,
MDL's
analyses provide vital information
diagnosis, evaluation,
8.
and
physicians
it offers
automated
and other healthcare
and treatment of viral, bacteria,
Although
unique, patented,
to
state-of-the-art
fungal,
and
parasitic
wide range of testing services, MDL
professionals
for the
infections.
specializes
in
providing
patent-pending laboratory testing services for detecting multiple pathogens
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
6 of 28
Page
associated with STIs.
ongoing exclusionary
and
Through repeated
9.
have violated well-established federal and
Pennsylvania
retain current, and obtain new, clientele for its proven

services that it
began offering
Defendants have
other sanctions
accomplished
on
detriment of MDL, healthcare

their
patients' health,
In
10.
provider
one
and
if
they refer
who
prefer to
case, in the summer of
use
intentionally
dominating
own
the
provision
of
wrongful
laboratory services
to the
compete for business in Southeastern Pennsylvania. As
LabCorp's
efforts
to
eliminate
competition
serious losses of its business and

11.
quality
By adding
MDL
laboratory testing
to
and
to the
MDL,
wrote to a healthcare
that if the
it would not be
paid
its
provider
duly
LabCorp
MDL with the purpose of
LabCorp
exclusion of MDL's and others'

a
owed
IBC and
direct and
proximate
laboratory testing services,
for
in concert,
services to be in the best interests of
substantially penalized.
against
actions
Acting
impose crippling penalties
2016, IBC telephoned and
services and otherwise be
committed their
right
in-network laboratory
MDL has suffered
provider, IBC would improve
the
of its insureds' care, maintain low costs, and fulfill the desire of IBC's in-network
healthcare
providers who
want to use MDL in
continue to engage in unlawful conduct that
utilizing the high-quality services
offered
caring
for their
patients. Yet,
deprives healthcare providers
by MDL.
IBC and
and
to
result of IBC and
profits.
as an
to
proprietary diagnostic
since 1997.
to
ability
MDL's services.
providers including MDL,
out-of-network
reimbursements for its
use
and
Defendants
MDL's
by preventing
judicial district, threatening
with 45 separate locations in this
continued to
STI
providers who regard MDL's
patients
threatening conduct,
high-quality
objective by threatening
providers
healthcare
law
Pennsylvania
in Southeastern
this
and
LabCorp
patients
from
Document 1
While
12.
Pennsylvania is
cannot
use
that the absence of such
willing provider,
from
desire for
more
legislation as
parties.
effective healthcare and

an
end and
IBC and Lab Corp
sword to violate the law and prevent MDL,
MDL's services
its
help meet
own
they should
in which
consumers
consumers' and
providers'
public
have the benefit of high-quality, cost-
wide range of choices. IBC's and

pay for the
business interests free
efficient delivery of high-quality healthcare services, and advance the
policy of a competitive marketplace
to
7 of 28
minority of states without "Any Willing Provider"
exercising its fundamental right to pursue
of the unlawful actions of other
Page
commanding market power such as
with
("AWP") statutes, corporations
in the
Filed 11/10/16
LabCorp's bullying must be brought
significant damage they have
caused to MDL.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13.
This Court has
original jurisdiction, pursuant to 28
pursuant
subject-matter jurisdiction
This Court also has

U.S.C.
to 28
states and the matter in
1332(a)(1)
because this is
controversy exceeds the
over
over
1.
the claims asserted herein under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.
14.
1331 and 1337,
U.S.C.
all claims asserted herein
civil action between citizens of different
sum or
value of
$75, 000.00, exclusive
of
interest and costs.

15.
over
This Court also has
the state law claims asserted
antitrust claims
as
supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant

herein, because those claims
to form the same case
or
to
are so
28 U.S.C.
1367(a),
related to the federal
controversy under article III of the United States
Constitution.
16.
Venue is proper
pursuant
to 15
U.S.C.
22 because both Defendants transact
substantial business in this judicial district,

17.
Venue is also proper in this
judicial
district under 28 U.S.C.
1391(b)
because
Defendants
part of the
subject
are
events
to
personal jurisdiction
giving rise to the
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
Page
8 of 28
in this district, and further because
substantial
claims asserted herein occurred in this district.

PARTIES
Plaintiff MDL is
18.
of New
Jersey,
member is
with its
of business in Hamilton, New
laws
Jersey, and whose sole
non-profit organization
under the laws of the Commonwealth
principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
of Pennsylvania with its
in
liability company formed under the
Jersey.
Defendant IBC is
Defendant
20.
sole-member limited
principal place
citizen of New
19.
LabCorp
is
corporation with
Delaware
its
principal place
of business
Burlington, North Carolina.

At all times material hereto, Defendants
21.
agents, servants, and/or employees acting within the
were
course
acting by and through authorized
and scope of their
employment or
agency.
INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE

At all times relevant
22.
Complaint,
IBC
IBC controls
as
largest health
the
and up
to
99% of certain
union workers. IBC's 2015

23.
complaint, LabCorp was
one
United States network of 39

2015
organization
insurance
in Southeastern
Pennsylvania.
approximately 67.5% of the private healthcare market in Southeastern
Pennsylvania,
such
was
hereto, and during the four years preceding the filing of this
revenues were
of the
demographic
revenue was
groups within Southeastern
Pennsylvania,
approximately $13.8 billion.
largest clinical laboratory networks
primary
laboratories and 1, 750
approximately $8.5
billion.
in the world, with
patient-service
centers.
LabCorp's
24.
complaint,
IBC's and
flow of and
LabCorp's
substantially affected
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
Page
9 of 28
activities that
interstate
subject of this Complaint were within the
the
are
commerce.
RELEVANT PRODUCT AND GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

25.
Complaint,
IBC had market power in the market for
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
private health
insurance in the
region
of the
consisting of Bucks, Delaware, Lancaster, Lebanon,
health
Montgomery, Northampton, and Philadelphia counties (the "Southeastern Pennsylvania
insurance
market").
26.
Complaint, IBC used

to
its market power in the Southeastern
dictate to healthcare
providers
in IBC's network that they must
testing services by threatening to expel
healthcare
exercise of their
independent medical judgment,
services that
not in IBC's
are
27.
Specifically,
health insurance market
to
IBC
employed
other laboratories that
28.
Southeastern
The market for
Pennsylvania
Defendants entered into
send
LabCorp for laboratory
IBC's network who, in the
specimen to providers
of laboratory
testing
its market power in the Southeastern
Pennsylvania
IBC's network that
they must use
dictate to healthcare
STIs
network who, in the exercise of their

or
providers from
use
insurance market
network.
LabCorp for specialty testing for
MDL
Pennsylvania health
are
providers in
by threatening to expel healthcare providers
not
specimens to
in IBC's network.
specialty testing for
are
send such
from IBC's
relevant
STIs
(the
"STI
specialty testing market")
product and geographic markets.
anticompetitive agreements with
each other
As
alleged herein,
by which, through the
in
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
exercise of 1BC's market power in the Southeastern
10 of 28
Pennsylvania health insurance market, they
specialty testing market in
restrained trade in the STI
Page
Southeastern
Pennsylvania.
FACTS
PLAINTIFF'S BACKGROUND
MDL
29.
serves
physicians, laboratories,
and abroad. MDL has six sales

Southeastern
personnel
are
in direct contact with
MDL
30.
testing services
for
specializes
diagnostic tests through
requisition,
as
service. This
well
in
as
providing unique, patented, and patent-pending laboratory
providers who
have
an
alarm
over
MDL has
to
able to request
device via courier
little
as
treatment of
twenty-four hours.
and
society as a whole,
protecting the viability of antibiotics,
its
unique and proprietary tests
in response to the
global
antibiotic resistance, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
as
antibiotics to
and
pregnant women and their unborn children.
developed
process in which bacteria

new
are
simple process which includes sending a paper or electronic test
of communicable diseases,
statement has described
need
account with MDL
unusually quick turn-around times benefit patients
preventing health threats

33.
STIs.
unique and proprietary testing process allows for quick and effective
by reducing the spread
its sales
diagnostic testing services through
submitting MDL's proprietary OneSwab collection
MDL's
States
physicians and other licensed professionals.
patients, providing test results to physicians in as

32.
its
detecting multiple pathogens associated with
Healthcare
31.
hospitals throughout the United
representatives, including a district manager, who serve the
Pennsylvania region. MDL markets
who
and
follows: "Because antibiotic resistance
occurs as
part of a natural
evolve, it can be slowed but not stopped. Therefore,
keep
up with resistant bacteria
as
well
as new
(CDC)
we
will
always
diagnostic tests to
track the
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
11 of 28
Page
development of resistance" (emphasis added). See
https://www.cdc.govldrugresistancelabout.html (visited November 8, 2016).

34.
By way
of example, MDL has
developed a test that has been issued a patent by
the United States Patent and Trademark Office based
patient has Neisseria gonorrhoeae,

patient has is resistant to
only clinical laboratory
35.
patients
are not
its
and if so, whether the
certain antibiotic
highly valuable
prescribed drugs that will
to
not
novelty to
determine whether a
particular strain
To the best of our
drugs.
of the disease the
knowledge,
MDL is the
currently provides such testing.
in the United States that
This test is
on
medical
actually
professionals
cure
as
it
particular strains
ensures
their
of gonorrhea their
patients might have.

36.
Health
helps healthcare providers
The test also
Organization (WHO) to
control the
spread
answer
the urgent call of the World
of antimicrobial resistant strains of
gonoiThea. See http://www.cdc.gov/Std/Gonorrhea/arg/default.htm (visited November 8, 2016).

37.
The CDC,
along with the WHO,
have determined that providing antibiotic
is essential for many
susceptibility testing (AST)
pathogens that are notorious for their ability to
mutate
and become resistant to antibiotic
therapy.
testing
serve a
societal need, it is vital to
improve
burden of antibiotic resistance, and

38.
are
save
Not
individual
and have
treatments. A reflex test is
developed
strains that
are
testing as
"reflex tests" for diseases which
resistant to many standard antibiotic
laboratory test performed subsequent

reflex
resulted test. MDL
performs
patient specimen
which the
on
patient outcomes, reduce the overall
healthcare dollars.
MDL performs its antibiotic resistance
highly mutable
only does performing antibiotic resistance
testing automatically at no
original test was performed.
to an
initially ordered
additional
Reflex
testing
and
charge, using the

is
an
same
important tool
in
providing timely
and cost-effective
By way
39.
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
quality of care
of example, MDL
to
Page
patients.
provides unique reflex antibiotic
susceptibility testing for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis,

vaginalis, Ureaplasma spp.,
and
performed at the time the

correct antibiotic and
uses
Trichomonas
only laboratory
Mycoplasma genitalium
physician to prescribe
do not perform the AST
application of nucleic acid-based technology (i.e.,
microorganisms and for the

LabCorp
trachomatis and
AST)
is
the
as a
reflex test.
detection of point mutations
does not
the treatment
perform
Trichmonas
or
certain genotypes.
vaginalis, Ureaplasma spp., Chlamydia
AST
Mycoplasma genitalium AST testing. LabCorp will only perform
The AST performed
option chosen by the physician.
specimen and the testing
it
uses
particularly useful for slow-growing or nonculturable
physician receives the initial test result and perhaps only if the patient
additional
are
PCR testing that MDL
order it,
physician orders it, which typically means the physician will only
on
whose
prevent the spread of the infection.
for pathogen detection and for
42.
and
resistance and
only culture-based testing that requires viability of the organism.

The
41.
MDL is the
infection is detected. This allows the
LabCorp and other clinical laboratories
40.
LabCorp
Mycoplasma genitalium.
vaginalis, Ureaplasma spp.,
AST services for Trichomonas
12 of 28
performs
is
by culture, not the
if at
if the
all, after the
has failed treatment based
by LabCorp requires an
PCR molecular method used
by MDL.
43.
As evidenced
provider agreements with

preferred by physicians
patients
are
quickly
and
herein, the value of MDL's unique testing services have resulted in
32 of the 36 Blue Cross Blue Shield networks. MDL's tests
across
the country and Southeastern
Pennsylvania,
efficiently prescribed appropriate drugs,
allow
because
are
they ensure
patients to avoid repeat
office visits and
Document 1
discomfort, and reduce the spread of disease as well
including LabCorp,
do not
Competitors
of MDL,
AST
This results in treatment failure
testing.
Filed 11/10/16
leads to additional
physician
or
13 of 28
Page
as
the costs of treatment.
include, and do not have the ability
unnecessary treatment
visits and increased costs to insurance
to
offer,
by physicians, which
companies and patients.
BACKGROUND LEADING TO VIOLATIVE CONDUCT

Defendant IBC administers healthcare insurance
44.
individuals
across
the country,
insurance company in the
in
Pennsylvania,
and is the
leading health
Philadelphia region.
IBC maintains
45.
including those located
plans covering nearly ten million
network of healthcare
providers with which
IBC has contracts,
generally known as "provider agreements."

When
46.
healthcare
provider
enters into a
provider agreement
or
similar
as
IBC, the provider becomes what is known in the healthcare insurance business
contract with
"in-network."
47.
providers
In connection with the execution of
provider agreements, in-network
agree to accept discounted rates for services
administered
48.
by
IBC.
Providers in Southeastern
into
provider agreements
this
area
and
can
49.
Pennsylvania have strong economic
incentives to enter
with IBC, because IBC has market power in the healthcare market in
therefore direct
Indeed, in-network provider

Southeastern
provided to patients with insurance
significant amounts
status is
of business to in-network
critical to the economic
viability
providers.
of healthcare
providers
Pennsylvania.
Prior to
outpatient laboratory
July 1, 2014, Quest Diagnostics was IBC's preferred provider of
services.
10
in
On
50.
or
before
Document 1
July 1, 2014,
Lab Corp to become IBC's "exclusive,
services." See
Filed 11/10/16
Page
IBC and Lab Corp entered into
an
14 of 28
agreement for
nationally based provider of outpatient laboratory
https://www.ibx.com/pdfs/individuals/find provider/innetwork
lab
services.pdf
(visited November 8, 2016).

When IBC entered into its
51.
in-network
providers of laboratory
agreement with LabCorp, it expressly represented that
services would remain in-network. In fact, to this
website, in discussing the effect of IBC's arrangement with LabCorp, expressly

other laboratories
exception
currently
of Quest
in
Independence's network will remain
Diagnostics."
in-network
day,
states that
IBC's
"All
providers with the
See
https://www.ibx.com/individuals/find_provider/outpatientJaboratory_provider.html (visited
November 8,
2016).
That statement
52.
on
IBC's website is false. A review of IBC's in-network
laboratories within 200 miles of Philadelphia,

That
LabCorp.
is, IBC, acting in
laboratories other than LabCorp,

from
receiving payments
53.
HMO, POS,
In
or
concert with
LabCorp, has eliminated all in-network
parallel to their decision to exclude out-of-network laboratories
for services to IBC's insureds.
addition, IBC continues
PPO
Pennsylvania reveals that all are owned by
plans)
are
free to
use
to
represent on its website that its insureds (whether in
the
laboratory service providers of their choice.1 In

Care
Organization (HMO) plan, insureds must choose a Primary

who will refer insureds to inPhysician (PCP) from a network of local healthcare providers
that PCP.
network specialists or hospitals when necessary. All care is coordinated through
in-network
Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plans allow insureds to visit whatever
a referral from a PCP. A Pointphysician or healthcare provider they wish without first requiring
and PPO plans.
Of-Service plan (POS) is a type of managed care plan that is a hybrid of HMO
care provider. But
Like an HMO, insureds designate an in-network physician to be their primary
services.
like a PPO, patients may go outside of the provider network for health care
1
Under
Health Maintenance
11
fact, IBC expressly
states
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
that PPO members
can use
Page
15 of 28
out-of-network laboratory, although the
reimbursement terms may be different from those for in-network labs.

As
54.
is also false, because IBC and Lab Corp
explained herein, that representation
have threatened and coerced
physicians and other medical
service
providers to direct all
of their
and IBC, since

laboratory work to LabCorp not to out-of-network providers including MDL,
into its
entering
in-network
for services that

agreement with LabCorp, has refused to provide reimbursement
physicians and
providers
other
have ordered from MDL.
DEFENDANTS' UNLAWFUL CONDUCT CAUSES

SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO COMPETITION
As
55.
LabCorp
have
result of their exclusive agreement and
network to
The
and
57.
on
one
enforcement efforts behind this
the
LabCorp does
herein prevents
58.
MDL's
unjustified preferential treatment
dominant health insurance
rights
of Southeastern
not
and cannot
provider, IBC, and one of the
Pennsylvania's healthcare providers,
provide
that MDL offers. As
physicians
Healthcare
provider,
and
providers
laboratory services
network
laboratory
in-network laboratory.
the
unique, patented,
over
patients
from
in Southeastern
those
proprietary STI
and Defendants' conduct
receiving the benefits
of such
as
testing.
Pennsylvania have shown a preference for
provided by LabCorp.
For many years,
MDL served many of IBC's in-network healthcare
12
and
result, LabCorp's laboratory testing services
demonstrably less effective than the services offered by MDL,
alleged
all
diagnostic laboratory providers.
laboratory testing services

are
illustrated below, IBC and
diagnostic laboratory providers, LabCorp, have conspired to reduce
competition and infringe

patients,
its
Pennsylvania's
shows that Southeastern

nation's dominant
LabCorp,
increasing
as
unlawfully pressured healthcare providers to refer
and
aggressively
testing in IBC's
56.
even as a non-
providers, and IBC
compensated MDL for the

59.
Page
16 of 28
services it provided to IBC's insureds.
Specimens received by MDL
on
behalf of IBC's in-network
began declining at a more dramatic rate
initial decline in 2014,
LabCorp and IBC increasingly attempted to

MDL for
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
coerce
in 2015 and
in-network healthcare
providers
showed
early 2016,
an
after
providers from using
laboratory services.
60.
Examples
of Defendants' intentional and unlawful coercive acts include the
following:
September 2014, a non-profit womens' healthcare
In
(a)
Pennsylvania ceased using

use
of MDL's services. The center
to come
use
MDL for
back to MDL,
they
diagnostic testing
as a
fearful
to
do
so
would
In
or
without written authorization from IBC to
around August 2015, IBC contacted
Cynwyd, Pennsylvania by phone
and letter
regarding "leakage"
an
OB-GYN
diagnostic laboratory.
reduced its
use
As
direct result of IBC's actions, this medical
of MDL's services that it in

In
(c)
January 2016, IBC
the group had not sent to
LabCorp.
sanctioned with fines if it continued
including MDL.
As
(d)
essence
sent
an
ceased
in Bala
utilizing
practice
so
MDL
as
substantially
using MDL.
OB-GYN group
list of patients whose tests
IBC informed the group that their offices would be
sending specimens
to
laboratories other than LabCorp,
direct result of IBC's actions, this group ceased

In
practice
out-of-network-providers.2
to
discontinue
IBC threatened to stop the office's reimbursements if they did not
strongly prefer
MDL's services.
(b)
Bryn Mawr,
result of letters IBC sent it about its
recently confirmed that although they
are too
center in
using MDL's services.
April 2016, another Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Leakage" refers to services being referred out of network by healthcare providers.
13
OB-GYN
group held
an
office
to discuss
meeting
supposedly required use
ceased
multiple threatening
During
of Lab Corp.
MDL for fear of being sanctioned
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
by IBC.
that
As
meeting,
letters sent to it
by
IBC about their
the office decided it had to stop
using
direct result of IBC's actions, this medical group

May 2016,
In
(e)
OB-GYN
Philadelphia
physician
felt that "her hands
Lab Corp, she had
direct result of IBC's
On
she disliked the services
or
around
May 2, 2016,
going to
continue
IBC called
work done
medical
practice
so
provided
an
OB-GYN group with
reduced its
or
around
use
hospital
As
to
IBC's threats
ignore
was
that all out-of-network
breaching
its contract
direct result of IBC's
of MDL it in
they
August 1, 2016 the offices
group's hospital stating
by out-of-network laboratories.
substantially
On
claimed that the
multiple
the offices' reimbursements if
to cut
using MDL.
directive from the
must cease because IBC
having
The
MDL's services and switch to Lab Corp. As
Pennsylvania, threatening
were
in the group received

use
though
IBC who
MDL's services.
out-of-network laboratories. The offices initially chose
and stated that they
laboratory
using
even
by
actions, this medical practice ceased using MDL's services.
offices in Southeastern
use
tied, and that
choice but to stop
no
(f)
continued to
were
contacted
was
stopped using
threatened to cut her office's reimbursements unless she
by
17 of 28
Page
essence
ceased
by
actions, this
using
MDL's
services.
(g)
On
or
around
visited the office of an OB-GYN to

the visit, this
things"
physician
with IBC. As
May 11, 2016,
speak with the
representative from
no
longer
direct result of IBC's actions, this medical
14
or
IBC
doctor about her out-of-network usage. After
informed MDL that she could
services.
either Lab Corp
use
MDL until MDL "fixed
practice
ceased
using
MDL's
During
(h)
of multiple medical
phone
care
call from IBC
around June 2016,
or
locations
threatening
throughout
to cut
group's
physician
Pennsylvania received
reimbursements and
multiple
area
his offices
September 2016,
In
hospitals received
were
Philadelphia
threatening phone
in breach of their
In addition to the
and
provider agreement
As
practice substantially reduced its use of MDL's
61.
to refer
continued
Reports" identifying
for
leakage report.

OB-GYN who is affiliated with
demanding
that
direct result of
leakage
to
out-of-
IBC''s threats, this
services.
and
emails, letters, telephone calls, and office visits by both IBC
in-network
LabCorp purposefully threatening to terminate providers'
physicians
email and
call from IBC, in which IBC claimed that
network laboratories, including MDL, must stop.

medical
an
impose penalties
also confronted with
was
direct result of IBC's actions, this medical group ceased
(i)
18 of 28
Page
leading physician within a group comprised
Southeastern
off the
continued out-of-network lab usage. This

As
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
samples
to
status with IBC if the
MDL, IBC also began sending physicians "Leakage
clinical laboratory tests sent to outof-network laboratory providers,
including MDL.
62.
In the healthcare
industry, however, it is common practice for a healthcare
provider to use out-of-network services

patient's
insurance
63.
LabCorp,
IBC
provider of such services to be paid by the
provider.
This is shown
paid MDL
Using
an
by the
over
insureds, despite MDL being

64.
and for the
fact that in 2013, before
entering into
agreement with
$1.6 million for almost 42, 000 tests for IBC's in-network
an
out-of-network laboratory.
out-of-network provider, if the healthcare
best medical interest of the
its
patient,
does not constitute
15
provider believes
breach of contract.
it is in the
By way of example,
Document 1
under PPO
member,
plans,
or
the
Filed 11/10/16
Page
19 of 28
provider's actual charge billed to the
insurers will pay the out-of-network
prevailing rate for what other healthcare professionals within the relevant
geographic area charge for their services.

The
65.
and threats
warnings
by IBC
intimidated IBC's in-network healthcare
providers stop using MDL's

the
largest private
as
with IBC threatens
providers'
Despite the
services,
some
economic
severe
IBC's directive to
feel that their "hands
are
These
providers have been
based
on
MDL's
cease
on
the
loss of in-network status
viability.
physicians
continue to
tied"
placed on providers who use MDL's
and medical
practices, exercising their
prefer MDL's services
sending specimen to
even
though, as
forced to terminate
over
Lab Corp, and have
MDL.
one
provider put it, they "dislike Lab Corp."
longstanding relationships with
MDL that
are
dependability and quality of service.
longer ordering MDL's tests

not
and result that the
Pennsylvania,
In addition to MDL's loss of patients in IBC's
68.
patients
health insurer in
and
Nevertheless, IBC and Lab Corp's continued threats have caused many providers
67.
to
providers, with the objective
pressure that IBC has
of 1BC's in-network

challenged
unlawfully threatened
services. Defendants' threats exert extreme pressure
providers, because
66.
and Lab Corp
for their IBC
patients
have also
network, physicians who
are no
stopped sending tests to MDL for
insured with IBC.
69.
has
To address IBC's unlawful exclusion of MDL from in-network status, MDL
repeatedly attempted
Pennsylvania,
to be
included
as an
in-network
provider with IBC
which is necessary for MDL to compete
physicians who
choose to
use
in Southeastern
effectively and provide
its services
MDL in the exercise of their medical judgment for their
16
to
patients.
In
70.
Lab Corp before
or
around
April 2016,
has reviewed MDL's test
clinical needs of our
offerings and
believes the
participating providers
and
Through IBC
LabCorp and other providers
as
and
A true and correct copy of this
LabCorp's improper efforts to eliminate competition between
of diagnostic
threats have been intimidated from
laboratory services
a
in Southeastern
dominant share of the

IBC's and
Pennsylvania,
laboratory services
LabCorp's unlawful
exercising their independent medical judgment and sending
laboratory testing requirements.
Defendants' conduct has resulted in the cessation of reimbursement to out-of-
providers,
benefits of MDL's
and
prevented
in-network providers and their patients from
superior diagnostic
impeded MDL's growth
as a
innovative testing methods,
Pennsylvania
services. Moreover, IBC and
Those
earnings
would have been used
advancing the quality

and
across
lost patient volume,
by MDL to further
of healthcare available to citizens in
the United States.
17
enjoying the
LabCorp have improperly
high-quality diagnostic laboratory, resulting in
growth, and earnings to MDL.
Southeastern
availability,
Exhibit A.
LabCorp, while healthcare providers subjected to
MDL certain of their
regarding a potential
and meet the access,
and members."
Defendant's unlawful agreement has conferred
network
again,
testing capabilities of Independence's
letter, dated September 22, 2016, is submitted herewith
73.
once
MDL, IBC stated that "Independence's medical management team
existing clinical laboratory network are comprehensive
on
speak with
MDL in-network status.
contract between IBC and
72.
20 of 28
into its network. This resulted in IBC,
In its latest response to MDL's communications with IBC
71.
market
Page
IBC informed MDL that IBC needed to
granting MDL admission
refusing to allow
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
its
Physicians
74.
and have
expressed
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
disagreed with
in IBC's network have
desire to return to MDL, but fear
Page
IBC's response in Exhibit A
losing their
own
with IBC because of the massive decrease in the number of patients and
expulsion from the IBC
in-network status
revenue
are
enrolled in IBC's insurance
plans
are
entitled to
physicians' independent medical judgment when selecting a laboratory provider,

that decision dictated
providers to
in
revenue
by their
company's bottom
insurance
cease
using MDL's
for MDL, but the
services have resulted not
rely on their
and not have
line.
Defendants' continuous unlawful demands for
76.
that
network would entail.
Patients who
75.
21 of 28
and healthcare
physicians
only in
the loss of millions of dollars
involuntary loss of many Pennsylvania physicians' preferred
laboratory service provider, the unlawful reduction of competition for diagnostic laboratories
Southeastern
Pennsylvania,
Southeastern
Pennsylvania.
reduction in the
quality of healthcare received by patients
Although Pennsylvania currently has
77.
not
enacted AWP
legislation, this
an
AWP law,
participating provider any provider in
its
geographic area who is willing to meet
of participation. Insurers with
providers
the
significant market power,
into their insurance network,
contractual terms,
quality
egregiously
of healthcare
even
though they
obstruct effective
patients
receive.
of this issue and have introduced HB 294,

the
such
are
competition
as
IBC, who do
in the
18
not
as
its conditions
permit
provider's market
have
legislation that would amend
plans.
is the
willing to accept the insurer's
Pennsylvania legislators
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing
benefit
in
health insurer may not refuse to accept
among the states. Under
minority view
a
and
in
and hinder
recognized the severity

Title 40
for nondiscrimination
(Insurance)
of
by payers in healthcare
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
Though Pennsylvania is not yet an AWP state,
78.
Lab Corp with
license
to
this does not
engage in unlawful threats and intimidation to
laboratories out of the market by
diagnostic
Page
independent medical judgment in the
provide IBC
push MDL
effectively preventing doctors
interests of their
22 of 28
from
and
and other
exercising
patients.
COUNTS (versus all Defendants)

COUNT I
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. I

Contract, Combination, or Conspiracy to Restrain
Section 1
Plaintiff MDL hereby alleges and incorporates by reference each
79.
paragraph
Trade
of this
80.
Complaint,
as
preceding
if set forth in full herein.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
1, prohibits,
inter
alia,
contracts
or
agreements that unreasonably restrain competition.

81.
IBC and
LabCorp entered into
an
unlawful exclusive dealing agreement, by which
for insureds in the Southeastern
Pennsylvania health insurance
healthcare
providers who
market
of
prevented from referring STI laboratory testing services to providers laboratory
are
care
services outside of IBC's network, with the purpose and result that
LabCorp performs
substantially all such testing.

82.
Defendants have achieved their
of its market power in the Southeastern

to
threaten and intimidate in-network
specimen to MDL
83.
for
or
anticompetitive objective through IBC's
Pennsylvania health
insurance market, which enables it
providers with expulsion from
other participants in the STI
ordered
out-of-network provider such
by
as
in-network providers,
MDL.
19
IBC's network if they send
specialty testing market other than LabCorp.
IBC has also refused to reimburse out-of-network
laboratory services
exercise
laboratories, including MDL,
despite the providers' preference for an
84.
market power
Through
as
Document 1
IBC's and Lab Corp's concerted
alleged herein, competition
Pennsylvania has
been
providing services
in
Filed 11/10/16
in the STI
activity,
Page
and IBC's exercise of its
laboratory testing market
which is that IBC's insureds
in Southeastern
five laboratories
substantially restrained and foreclosed, with at least
competition
23 of 28
with MDL shut out of competition in this market. The result of
consumers
and continue to be denied the benefits of competition in the STI
including the benefits laboratory services
by IBC
of healthcare services reimbursed
have been
specialty testing market,
other than Lab Corp's such
as
MDL's
superior
STI
specialty testing products.

85.
In
addition, Defendants' concerted activity, and IBC's exercise of its market
including IBC's threats to expel
power
providers
products
in the
86.
care
coerce
physicians and other in-
using Lab Corp's services for STI specialty testing,
into
providers' preference,
providers who send laboratory testing to
have coerced and continue to
out-of-network labs like MDL

network
in-network
in their
of their
spite
of those
STI
specialty
commerce
because,
superior
patients.
Defendants' concerted action
among other reasons, many
for MDL's
in
alleged herein affects
interstate
diagnostic laboratories, including MDL,
are
located in states outside
Pennsylvania.
87.
MDL has been
Specifically, beginning
STI
at
injured as
tests that
network
revenue
direct result of Defendants'
anticompetitive
the latest in 2013, Defendants' actions to reduce,
of dollars in lost
Southeastern
conduct.
competition
Pennsylvania have resulted in MDL losing
due to, among other
reasons:
(1)
in the
millions
IBC's refusal to reimburse IBC for
in-network providers have sent to MDL; and (2) IBC's successful efforts to prevent in-
providers from sending tests to MDL that would have been sent to MDL
20
in the absence
of Defendants'
Defendants'
88.
STI
anticompetitive
Document 1
viability will
As
89.
be
share of the
STI
destroyed as
direct and
activity as alleged herein,
from the STI
providers succumb to IBC's threats.
result of Defendants' concerted and
in Southeastern
Southeastern
competition in the
specialty testing market, because their
Defendants have increased their
24 of 28
Pennsylvania by driving smaller and specialized
in-network
proximate
laboratory testing market
revenues
and
anticompetitive
profits, and LabCorp's
Pennsylvania, including specifically the
Pennsylvania,
has been
unlawfully enlarged.
addition, physicians and other in-network providers will be prevented from
In
90.
conduct further threatens to harm
Southeastern
diagnostic laboratories, including MDL,

economic
Page
conduct.
anticompetitive
Filed 11/10/16
exercising their independent medical judgment in the best interest of their patients
IBC's insureds
as
they
are
including
specimens to LabCorp rather than the laboratory they
forced to send
prefer.
Defendants' conduct
91.
innovation in STI
this
alleged
herein will chill
price competition and reduce
diagnostic testing, reducing the quality of healthcare
received
by patients
in
region.
COUNT II
Tortious Interference with
92.
paragraph
93.
Plaintiff MDL
of this
hereby alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding

as
Under Pennsylvania
protected against
94.
Complaint,
Existing Business Relations
common
intentional interference
Defendants IBC and
law, existing
through
LabCorp
have
21
contracts and business relations
are
unlawful conduct of competitors.
tortiously
interfered with MDL's
existing
and
prospective
business
of healthcare
harm the
ceased
or
LabCorp
have taken these unlawful actions
existing relationships between the in-network providers

The
96.
have
25 of 28
from the economic benefits of IBC's vast insurance network.
IBC and
95.
Page
but not limited to, threats of penalties and exclusion
relationships through,
providers
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
physicians
and medical
significantly reduced the
practices
knowing that they would
and MDL.
described above, among others, have
number of specimens sent to MDL for
testing
as a
result of Defendants' actions.

The actions of the Defendants,
97.
purpose of interfering
with, usurping,
privilege, justification,
As
99.
MDL has been
aforesaid,
were
undertaken for the express
preventing MDL's existing business relations.
or
LabCorp committed the aforementioned actions without adequate
IBC and
98.
as
or
good faith.
direct and
injured by the
proximate
cause
of the aforementioned actions of the Defendants,
loss of a substantial
has suffered the loss of a substantial
portion
of its
existing business relations,
and
portion of its prospective business relations.

COUNT III
Tortious
100.
paragraph
contracts
Plaintiff MDL
of this
101.
Complaint,
As is the
and business
Pennsylvania common
102.
prospective
Interference
case
hereby alleges
as
Prospective Business Relations

and
incorporates by reference
each
preceding
with
existing contracts
relationships
are
and business
protected against
relationships, prospective
intentional interference under
law.
Defendants IBC and

business
with
LabCorp
relationships through,
have
tortiously
interfered with MDL's
existing and
but not limited to, threats of penalties and exclusion
22
Document 1
of healthcare
Page
26 of 28
the economic benefits of IBC's vast insurance network.
providers from
IBC and
103.
Filed 11/10/16
actions
LabCorp have taken these unlawful
knowing that they would
between MDL and other

prevent further prospective contractual relations from occurring
healthcare
providers within
104.
The actions of the Defendants,
purpose of interfering with,

105.
IBC's network.
IBC and
usurping,
As
aforesaid,
were
direct and
undertaken for the express
preventing MDL's prospective
LabCorp committed the aforementioned
privilege, justification, or good

106.
or
as
business relations.
actions without
adequate
faith.
proximate
cause
MDL has suffered the loss of a substantial
of the aforementioned actions of the Defendants,
portion of its prospective
business relations.
COUNT IV
Unfair Competition
107.
Plaintiff MDL
paragraph of this Complaint,

108.
The
common
hereby alleges
as
law tort of unfair
direct
(Third)
competitor
LabCorp
is
IBC and
LabCorp have,
incorporates by
reference each
preceding
definition set forth in the Restatement

109.
and
competition
of Unfair
of MDL
in Pennsylvania
corresponds
to the
Competition.
as a
diagnostic laboratory service
provider.
110.
physicians
and healthcare
111.
IBC and
would harm the
in various ways, coerced
numerous
Pennsylvania
providers to involuntarily cease utilizing MDL's testing services.
LabCorp
relationships
have taken the aforementioned actions
knowing that they
between the in-network providers and MDL, and limit
23
competition
among
As
112.
injured by the
diagnostic
laboratories in
Page
27 of 28
Pennsylvania.
result of the aforementioned actions of the Defendants, MDL has been
Filed 11/10/16
Document 1
portion
of its
portion
of its
existing
business relations and has suffered the
prospective business relations.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment in its favor and against Defendants
on
and for each above count
Clayton Act,
26, from continuing the unlawful
15 U.S.C.
Plaintiff threefold the
B.
alleged
damages
in Count I
for all
acts set forth
it has sustained and will have sustained
herein; awarding
as a
result of the
above;
Awarding compensatory damages
jointly and severally,
in favor of Plaintiff against all Defendants,
damages sustained as
amount in excess of $75, 000.00,
C.
and their agents, pursuant to Section 16 of the
Permanently enjoining Defendants
A.
violations
independently as follows:
result of Defendants'
wrongdoing,
in
an
exclusive of interest and costs;
Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the
maximum extent
permitted by law;
D.
Awarding punitive damages
amount to be proven at
the maximum extent

E.
an
trial, including both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon
to
permitted by law;
Awarding
Plaintiff its reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including reasonable attorneys'

F.
for Defendants' willful and wanton acts, in
fees and expert fees; and
Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff is entitled in law
Court may deem just and proper.
24
or
in
equity as
the
Document 1
Filed 11/10/16
Page
28 of 28
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff hereby demands
trial
by jury.
MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN,
WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
Dated: November
2016
By:
/s/ Richard
L.
Scheff
Richard L. Scheff (Pa. I.D. #35213)

Peter Breslauer (Pa. I.D. #66641)
Sidney S. Liebesman (Pa. I.D. #75945)
Ernest D. Holtzheimer (Pa. I.D. #323230)
123 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA
(215) 772-1500
19109
Counsel for Plaintiff,

Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC
25

Medical Diagnostic v. Independence Blue Cross - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Medical Diagnostic v. Independence Blue Cross - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JS 44

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Independence Blue Cross;

Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

Attorneys (If Known)

(10 Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP

"X" in One Box

of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

Citizen of This State

Incorporated and Principal Place

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an

0 320 Assault, Libel &

Rent Lease & Ejectment

"X" in One Box

0 625 Drug Related Seizure

861 HIA (1395f0

0 480 Consumer Credit

FEDERAL TAX SUITSs

filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversi6):

to Restrain Trade in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

893 Environmental Matters

0 462 Naturalization Application

/s/ Richard L. Scheff,

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

430 Banks and Banking

0 871 IRSThird Party

CI CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

(11( 410 Antitrust

0 400 State Reapportionment

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are

0 375 False Claims Act

0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

0 440 Other Civil Rights

210 Land Condenmation

0 362 Personal Injury

"X" in One Box

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2439 Kuser Road, Hamilton, NJ

1901 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA

Place of Accident, Incident

(Use Reverse Side

for the purpose of

(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form

Does this civil action involve

in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.

involve multidistrict litigation possibilities?

RELATED CASE, IF ANY:

deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:

2. Does this case involve the

earlier numbered suit

grow out of the

terminated action in this court?

successive habeas corpus, social

111 ONE CATEGORY

previously terminated action in this court?

Federal Question Cases:

Diversity Jurisdiction Cases: