DQ 8.

1 (WEEK 8)

Prepared by:

Emad Abufares

Haya Al-Zamli

Omar Mash’al

Solafa Al-Smadi

Suha Khanfar

Zaid Wahshat

BUS 540 Business Law for Managers

Dr Mohamed Feyala

April 22nd, 2023

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS (DQ's).

Review Critical Legal Thinking Case #33.2 on page 604 of the textbook entitled Arizona v.

Maricopa County Medical Society. Using IRAC, analyze what you believe the result of the

case should be.

Answer

The Maricopa County Medical Society and the Pima Foundation should be found to have

engaged in horizontal price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act because of Arizona winning the

lawsuit. This is based on web search results because the context of the web page is insufficient to

answer the query (Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 1982).

IRAC

The IRAC technique entails determining the legal issue in a case, presenting the pertinent

legal principle, examining how the principle applies to the case's circumstances, and reaching a

conclusion (Miller & Charles, 2009).

Issue:

Did agreements amongst rival member doctors to establish the highest prices they could

demand as complete payment for the medical services they supplied to policyholders violate

Section $ 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1?

Rule:

Each arrangement that restricts trade is forbidden by Section (1). Regardless of whether it

establishes uniform pricing, minimum prices, or maximum prices, price fixing is considered illegal
per se. Once a price-fixing agreement is established, the rule of reason investigation under Section

1§ is concluded (Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 1982).

Analysis:

The agreements among the member physicians of the Maricopa County Medical Society

and the Pima Foundation fit squarely into the horizontal price-fixing mold. They are agreements

among competitors to restrict prices for specific medical services. They have anticompetitive

effects, as they may interfere with the ability of other doctors to compete in the market, reduce

consumer choice and quality, and discourage innovation. The purpose and effect of the agreements

are irrelevant, as they are illegal per se under § 1.

Conclusion:

Arizona is entitled to partial summary judgment because the agreements amongst the

member physicians are in violation of Section 1 § of the Sherman Act.

References

Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society. (1982, 18 June). 457 U.S. 332.102 S. Ct. 2466; 73 L.

Ed. 2d 48. Supreme Court of the United States. Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical

Society | Detailed Pedia

Miller, N. P., & Charles, B. J. (2009). Meeting the Carnegie Report's Challenge to Make Legal

Analysis Explicit—Subsidiary Skills to the IRAC Framework. Journal of Legal

Education, 59(2), 192-220.