Kaj Rozga, Counsel, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, speaks with Michelle Yost Hale, Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and Paul Wong, Director, NERA Economic Consulting, about the key takeaways from the Sidibe v. Sutter case, which was a class-action lawsuit filed by consumers in Northern California alleging that Sutter Health engaged in anti-competitive contracting practices; the case ended in Sutter Health’s favor. They discuss the two main theories the plaintiffs used to allege Sutter Health’s monopolization of medical services, how those theories may have played with the jury, and practical advice for lawyers and economists who are advising health care providers on these issues. From AHLA’s Antitrust Practice Group.Watch the conversation here. Watch Kaj Rozga's first video, where he provides more background on the case, here.Essential Legal Updates, Now in Audio AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast. Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal Education Learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.