Bradley A. Chicoine, Dr. Bradley A. Chicoine, D.C., P.C., Mark A. Niles, Niles Chiropractic, Inc., Rod R. Rebarcak, and Ben Winecoff, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Like Situated v. Wellmark, Inc. D/B/A Wellmark Blue Cross A
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 38
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Thirteen Iowa chiropractors filed a class-action under the Iowa Competition Law (rule-of-reason) alleging Wellmark and related BCBS entities conspired with competitors and self-funded plans to fix prices, allocate markets, and discriminate against chiropractors, reducing reimbursements.
- Plaintiffs sought class certification of Iowa chiropractors for injuries from anticompetitive agreements and policies (e.g., capped visits, preapproval requirements, lower capitated rates for chiropractors).
- Wellmark moved to stay the Iowa case pending pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL in Alabama (In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2406), arguing overlap of parties/issues and efficiency/comity reasons.
- The Alabama MDL consolidated many federal antitrust suits by diverse healthcare providers and subscribers; it used a bellwether approach and had an Iowa chiropractor named in the federal provider complaint.
- The Iowa district court granted an open-ended stay ‘‘in favor of further proceedings in MDL No. 2406’’; Iowa Supreme Court granted interlocutory review.
- The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the stay, concluding the district court abused its discretion because the stay was indefinite, likely lengthy, and benefits from MDL resolution were uncertain given differences in claims, parties, and possible legal theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly stayed the Iowa antitrust suit pending MDL No. 2406 | Stay is inappropriate because Iowa plaintiffs would suffer prejudice from an indefinite delay; cases and issues are not substantially identical | Stay appropriate for comity, efficiency, and to avoid inconsistent rulings because MDL involves overlapping parties and similar antitrust claims | Vacated stay — district court abused discretion; indefinite stay with uncertain benefits is immoderate and prejudicial |
| Whether MDL resolution would materially advance or simplify Iowa case | MDL differs materially (Iowa claim alleges discriminatory treatment of chiropractors; MDL alleges broad, industry‑wide low reimbursements); MDL outcomes may not resolve Iowa issues | MDL’s rulings on common antitrust questions and overlapping parties could aid or control the Iowa litigation | Court found benefits speculative: differences in claims/theories reduce likelihood MDL would settle or simplify key Iowa issues |
| Whether comity and harmonizing state and federal antitrust law (Iowa Code § 553.2) require deference to federal MDL | Iowa courts can apply federal antitrust precedent; § 553.2 does not delegate state authority or require automatic deference | § 553.2 calls for harmonization and uniform standards, supporting a stay to await federal rulings | Rejected; harmonization does not compel deferring to federal MDL when state court can resolve matter and stay would be indefinite |
| Whether an open‑ended stay pending bellwether/pretrial MDL proceedings is reasonable | Plaintiffs argued Landis prohibits stays that are immoderate or indefinite and that a multiyear stay is unlawful | Wellmark argued bellwether/pretrial rulings and efficiencies justify a stay despite duration | Court applied Landis: indefinite, potentially multi‑year stay is immoderate and unlawful here; stay vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (stay must be moderate in scope; indefinite/multiyear stays that unduly delay justice are improper)
- First Midwest Corp. v. Corporate Finance Associates, 663 N.W.2d 888 (Iowa 2003) (standards for district court discretion in granting stays and weighing competing interests)
- Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc., 818 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2012) (prior related chiropractic litigation addressing per se antitrust claims)
- Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc., 861 N.W.2d 563 (Iowa 2015) (continued litigation on Wellmark’s provider arrangements)
- Wellmark, Inc. v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 890 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2017) (procedural history and related decisions involving Wellmark)
- Brenton Bros. v. Dorr, 239 N.W. 808 (Iowa 1931) (recognizing courts’ authority to control docket and grant stays)