Oltz V. St. Peter's Community Hospital
Anti-trust laws were established to promote and protect competition. This idea is the anti-trust law proper purpose. The purposes of the laws are not to punish big companies solely on account of their size, or to serve as an alternative set of “consumer protection” laws. The case of Oltz v. St. Peter’s Community Hospital is a different type of anti-trust case in which the hospital allowed a group of anesthesiologists from inside the facility to create an organization that directly eliminated outside competition from Mr. Oltz. The law was broken when the group of anesthesiologists banded together to drive out any form of competition, which resulted in the failure of Mr. Oltz’s business. Initially the organization of anesthesiologist from St.
…show more content…
Arbitration is a relatively fast way to arrive upon a decision when two parties are in a dispute. Arbitration has definite benefits such as being flexible and not as formal as a traditional courthouse. Usually, arbitration can be scheduled quicker and with less working parts than a trial. In rare instances, if all parties involved come to an agreement, arbitrators can sometimes create rulings that judges are not allowed to decide. In arbitration, both sides present all evidence to an arbitrator in efforts to prove each side’s case. The arbitrator reaches a final verdict and decides whom the winners and losers are. An arbitrator does the job that a traditional judge or jury would normally do in court if the matter escalated to that point (Hill …show more content…
Anti-trust laws were created top prevent larger companies and organizations from pushing smaller entities out of the ability to fairy compete for business. Mr. Oltz received a settlement from the hospital initially but was later unable to recoup legal fees and damages from the hospital once the trial judge ruled the damages were excessive. This case is a great example of what anti-trust laws were designed to do and who the laws are intended to protect. Mr. Oltz unfortunate encountered difficulty with getting his legal fees paid based upon a technicality, however this case did shed light on the conspiracy at elimination of competition among anesthesiologists in St. Peter’s Community
Arbitration is a relatively fast way to arrive upon a decision when two parties are in a dispute. Arbitration has definite benefits such as being flexible and not as formal as a traditional courthouse. Usually, arbitration can be scheduled quicker and with less working parts than a trial. In rare instances, if all parties involved come to an agreement, arbitrators can sometimes create rulings that judges are not allowed to decide. In arbitration, both sides present all evidence to an arbitrator in efforts to prove each side’s case. The arbitrator reaches a final verdict and decides whom the winners and losers are. An arbitrator does the job that a traditional judge or jury would normally do in court if the matter escalated to that point (Hill …show more content…
Anti-trust laws were created top prevent larger companies and organizations from pushing smaller entities out of the ability to fairy compete for business. Mr. Oltz received a settlement from the hospital initially but was later unable to recoup legal fees and damages from the hospital once the trial judge ruled the damages were excessive. This case is a great example of what anti-trust laws were designed to do and who the laws are intended to protect. Mr. Oltz unfortunate encountered difficulty with getting his legal fees paid based upon a technicality, however this case did shed light on the conspiracy at elimination of competition among anesthesiologists in St. Peter’s Community