Importantly, Cantor said the lower court made instructional errors and excluded significant pieces of evidence that “buttressed” his clients’ case.
“Those admissions demonstrated that Sutter not only had an anticompetitive purpose, but it had market power over the health plans,” Cantor said.
Thanks to the court’s errors, the purchasers were “substantially handicapped” and the jury was “substantially deprived” at trial, he said.
“We now look forward to going back to trial, submitting all this evidence to our jury and getting justice,” Cantor said.
Meanwhile, Sutter said in a statement that it is “disappointed by today’s divided appellate ruling overturning a unanimous jury verdict in our favor finding Sutter did not violate antitrust laws.”
“Sutter Health intends to pursue all avenues to overturn the erroneous decision, as guided by our commitment to caring for our patients and continuing to provide them with high-quality, connected and affordable care,” the health network said.
Purchasers first filed suit in 2012, claiming that Sutter took advantage of its dominance in Northern California when contracting with insurers, leading to artificially inflated premiums for the class members, including the City and County of San Francisco.
