You are on page 1of 28

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

Page

3 of 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

Filed 11/10/16

4 of 28

Page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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.

At all times relevant

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.

hereto, and during the four years preceding the filing of this

largest clinical laboratory networks

primary

laboratories and 1, 750

approximately $8.5

billion.

in the world, with

patient-service

centers.

LabCorp's

At all times relevant

24.

complaint,

IBC's and

flow of and

LabCorp's

substantially affected

Filed 11/10/16

Document 1

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

Page

9 of 28

hereto, and during the four years preceding the filing of this

activities that
interstate

subject of this Complaint were within the

the

are

commerce.

RELEVANT PRODUCT AND GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS


At all times relevant

25.

Complaint,

hereto, and during the four years preceding the filing of this

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").
At all times relevant

26.

Complaint, IBC used


to

hereto, and during the four years preceding the filing of this

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

independent medical judgment,

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

using MDL's services.


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.

using MDL's services.


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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

independent medical judgment,


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.

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

independent medical judgment,

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,

specialty testing market in

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

specialty testing market in

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

specialty testing market in

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

if set forth in full herein.

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

if set forth in full herein.

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

if set forth in full herein.

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

loss of a substantial

loss of a substantial

Filed 11/10/16

Document 1

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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

Case 2:16-cv-05855-GJP

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