Plaintiff filed suit against defendant related to violations of the Clayton Act and Sherman Act. Defendant hired a Health Care Economics Expert Witness to provide testimony. Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude. The court denied the motion to exclude.
Facts: This case (PREMIER COMP SOLUTIONS, LLC v. UPMC HEALTH NETWORK, INC. et al – United States District Court – Western District of Pennsylvania – February 7th, 2019) involves a claim alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., violation of Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22, and common law Unfair Competition. The defendant has hired Health Care Economics Expert Witness Dr. David Reitman to provide testimony. The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude the testimony of this expert.
Discussion: The plaintiff alleges that Dr. Reitman’s opinions do not have any basis and are unreliable because he lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, to provide an opinion about the economic operation or incentives in the workers’ compensation insurance or health care markets. In addition, the plaintiff states that Dr. Reitman does not have the requisite expertise to opine about whether the theft of trade secrets from the plaintiff had any anticompetitive effect in any of the relevant markets.
Dr. Reitman has a Master’s Degree in Economics and a Ph.D. in Decision Sciences. He was an Assistant Professor of Economics at Ohio State University for nine years and worked as an economist at the Department of Justice for ten years. Some of Dr. Reitman’s cases at the Department of Justice involved vertical issues in the health care industry. The court opines that Dr. Reitman is qualified to opines on the issues in this case and his academic qualifications and experience as an antitrust economist gives him the ability to analyze the relevant antitrust market.
The court further notes that the plaintiff’s contention that Dr. Reitman should be precluded from opining on whether certain information was a trade secret is without merit.
In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Dr. Reitman’s opinions are not reliable because of his lack of appropriate qualifications and experience. Since the court has already found that Dr. Reitman is qualified as an antitrust economist. Thus, this argument is without merit as well.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Reiman is denied.