Sutter Health Pays $575M to Resolve Claims of Anticompetitive Practices
Sutter Health admitted no wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement.
December 20, 2019 at 03:50 PM
3 minute read
The largest health care system in Northern California has agreed to pay $575 million to settle claims that it used its market power to artificially inflate health care prices in the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley, Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Friday.
Sutter Health will make the payment to employers, unions and others covered under the class action and to attorneys working on the case. The Sacramento-based health care company will also limit what it charges for out-of-network services, increase price transparency and cooperate with a court-appointed monitor over the next decade, according to terms of the settlement filed in San Francisco Superior Court.
"This first-in-the-nation comprehensive settlement should send a clear message to the markets: if you're looking to consolidate for any reason other than efficiency that delivers better quality for a lower price, think again," Becerra said in a prepared statement.
Becerra was joined in the suit by the United Food and Compmercial Workers International Union, the Employers Benefit Trust and individual plaintiffs. In addition to the attorney general's office, the plaintiffs were represented by lawyers from firms including Pillsbury & Coleman; Farella Braun + Martel; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick; and McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry.
Becerra and the class counsel will ask for up to one-third of the monetary portion of the settlement for attorneys' fees and costs, according to the filing. The attorney general's office will additionally seek up to $11.2 million to cover litigation costs while the plaintiffs' counsel will ask for $13.8 million.
Lawyers from Keker, Van Nest & Peters; Jones Day; and Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller joined Sutter Health counsel as the defenders in the litigation.
Sutter Health admitted no wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement.
"We were able to resolve this matter in a way that enables Sutter Health to maintain our integrated network and ability to provide patients with access to affordable, high-quality care," Sutter senior vice president and general counsel Flo Di Benedetto said in an emailed statement. "Together with the Attorney General, the parties selected an experienced monitor who will oversee the agreement, which specifies parameters for contracting between Sutter Health and insurance companies going forward."
The plaintiffs originally sued Sutter Health in 2014 claiming the company's contract practices artificially inflated prices. The California attorney general filed similar claims against Sutter in 2018.
The case appeared headed to a months-long trial until the two sides announced in October they had reached a deal. The agreement is scheduled to go before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo on Feb. 25.
Read more:
Sutter Health Settles Antitrust Case With State, Employers on the Eve of 3-Month Trial
In Antitrust Case Against Northern California's Largest Hospital Chain, a False Start
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readState Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250