Reptile theory motion in limine8/12/2023 ![]() ![]() This evidence is highly relevant to two completely separate issues-the so-called "efficiencies defense" and the "non-profit status defense."ġ. The "relevance" argument raised by the motion, that the only issue to which the out-of-state money transfers relate is hospital pricing, was wrong when defendants' raised it during the September 1 status hearing and is wrong now. Relevance to the "Efficiencies" and "Non-Profit Status" Defenses. If we are right as to either, the motion must be denied.Ī. This response addresses these two principal defects in the motion. Fuller's testimony clearly explains why the motion's logic on the pricing issue (to the effect that, because the transfers occur "after" the hospital sets its prices, they cannot affect prices) makes no sense: Whatever pricing decisions a transfer follows, it necessarily precedes all subsequent pricing decisions. Fuller), who candidly admitted that these money transfers do affect pricing. Indeed, they ignore: (i) the unequivocal documentary evidence (including the budget guidelines where the out-of-state parent tells Mercy in Dubuque what percentage Mercy will send out-of-state so that Mercy can factor that into its operating plan and budget) and (ii) the testimony of Mercy's board chairman and a future DRHS board member (Mr. Second, the motion's selective citations from the record on the question of the money transfers' "effect on pricing" are incomplete and inaccurate. 3 and 6)), if they are not, defendants' motion necessarily must fail. Thus, while we believe that those defenses should be excluded before trial (as set forth in our motions in limine on the point (nos. There are two fundamental flaws in this motion:įirst, even assuming that the out-of-state money transfers had no relevance to Mercy's pricing or anything in the Government's direct case, it is indisputable that such evidence is highly relevant to at least two defenses raised by defendants (the "efficiencies defense" and the "non-profit status defense"). ![]() RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE (re out-of- state money transfers)ĭefendants' motion in limine, seeking to exclude all evidence of Mercy's out-of-state money transfers, argues that such evidence is not relevant to prices charged by Mercy and, therefore, not relevant to what the Government must prove to prevail in this case. MERCY HEALTH SERVICES and FINLEY TRI-STATES HEALTH GROUP, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content), and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |