In March 2022, a San Francisco jury found Sutter Health not guilty of anticompetitive behavior in a class-action lawsuit. However, new evidence has emerged that could have affected the decision. Testimony from the former finance chief revealed that Sutter could make an additional $200 million annually by requiring insurers to contract with all of its hospitals. The former CEO also admitted that they forced health plans to pay more.
The U.S. appeals court has now found this evidence to be relevant and has criticized the judge for not allowing it to be presented during the trial. As a result, the Ninth Circuit panel has overturned Sutter’s victory in the case, which alleged that Sutter’s market power drove up healthcare costs by over $400 million in the region. This ruling means that the case will likely go to a second trial.
Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Matthew Cantor, stated that the appellate court suggested that the jury was influenced by this omitted evidence and as a result, the jury’s verdict is invalidated. This development emphasizes the importance of ensuring that all relevant evidence is presented during trials and highlights how omitted evidence can potentially impact the outcome of a case.
