Bonner v. Medical Board of CA
2:17-cv-00445
E.D. Cal.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Ernest Bonner, M.D., alleged the Medical Board of California violated his federal rights by revoking his medical license without a hearing on his petition for penalty relief, after years of investigation and discipline related to his medical practice.
- Bonner’s license was revoked in 2014 for failure to comply with probation, but later reinstated after a state court temporary stay; he ultimately completed the probation requirements and the petition for penalty relief was deemed moot.
- Bonner, who is Black, filed a federal lawsuit in 2017, asserting in part antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, claiming the Board’s actions unlawfully restrained competition, especially among minority medical professionals.
- The district court initially granted summary judgment for the Board on all claims based on judicial immunity; the Ninth Circuit affirmed this on non-antitrust claims but remanded antitrust claims for further consideration.
- On remand, the court required supplemental briefing; the Board renewed its motion for summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence for antitrust violations and addressing market definition and anticompetitive effects.
- The court ultimately granted summary judgment to the Board, resolving the case on the merits without reaching immunity defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sherman Act Section 1 Violation | Board conspired to restrain competition in CA medical market | No evidence of substantial anticompetitive effect; market not defined | No Section 1 violation; summary judgment for Board |
| Sherman Act Section 2 Violation | Board attempted to monopolize by revoking license; targeting minority professionals | Board lacks market power; no monopoly; insufficient evidence | No Section 2 violation; summary judgment for Board |
| Market Definition and Antitrust Injury | Market is CA medical services (or subset); Board harmed competition | Plaintiff’s market share negligible; effects not market-wide | No cognizable market or antitrust injury |
| Section 4 Clayton Act Standing | Entitled to sue for damages from antitrust violation | Derivative claim; rises or falls with Sherman Act claims | No separate analysis; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (sets summary judgment standard – genuine dispute of material fact required)
- Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 585 U.S. 529 (2018) (restraints of trade generally assessed under rule of reason)
- State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) (only unreasonable restraints prohibited under Sherman Act)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment can be granted if plaintiff fails to demonstrate anticompetitive effects)
- Dreamstime.com LLC v. Google LLC, 54 F.4th 1130 (9th Cir. 2022) (market share necessary to show monopoly power)