DOJ Antitrust Settlement Requires North Carolina Physician Group To Disband
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.15.02
On December 13th, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice announced that it will require Mountain Health Care, an independent physicians organization headquartered in Asheville, North Carolina, to cease its operations and dissolve. The Department said that under a proposed settlement, Mountain Health Care will cease negotiating and contracting with health care plans on behalf of its participating physicians, a practice DOJ said resulted in consumers paying increased prices to Mountain Health Care's physician members for health care services.
Click here for the DOJ complaint, stipulation to final judgment, and competitive impact statement.
According to the DOJ complaint filed in federal district court in connection with the settlement, Mountain Health Care restrained price and other forms of competition among physicians in Western North Carolina by adopting a uniform fee schedule for its physicians. Mountain Health Care agreed to contracts with managed care purchasers that incorporated the collectively set fees. These actions resulted in higher rates charged to health plans leading to higher health costs for ultimate consumers, DOJ said.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
