Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-12-2004
Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hosp
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 01-2585
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hosp" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1100.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1100
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 01-2585, 01-2930
___________
RICHARD J. ANGELICO, M.D.,
Appellant
v.
LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.; SAINT LUKE'S
HOSPITAL OF BETHLEHEM PENNSYLVANIA; EASTON
HOSPITAL; PANEBIANCO-YIP HEART SURGEONS;
BETHLEHEM CARDIOTHORACIC SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C.;
BRIAN M . PETERS, ESQ.; POST & SCHELL, P.C.;
DECHERT, PRICE & RHOADS; JEFFREY G. WEIL
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 96-cv-02861)
District Judge: The Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 28, 2003
BEFORE: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, NYGAARD, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.
(Filed : January 12, 2004 )
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Dr. Richard Angelico, a cardiothoracic surgeon who was denied access to
surgical facilities in his area, sued several hospitals, surgical groups, and various others
for antitrust and § 1983 violations, inter alia. A jury found for the Defendants on all
counts, and the District Court rejected Angelico’s motion to alter the judgment or grant a
new trial. The District Court also quashed a post-verdict subpoena and ruled that
Defendant Lehigh Valley Hospital was entitled to immunity. On this appeal, we will
refuse to disturb the judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict. We also will affirm the
District Court’s exercises of discretion on the admissibility of evidence, mode of trial,
scope of discovery, and availability of immunity.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Because the facts are known to the parties, we review them only briefly and
only as they relate to the remaining Defendants, the Appellees before this Court, Lehigh
2
Valley Hospital, Inc., St. Luke’s Hospital of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Easton
Hospital (collectively, “the Hospitals”).1
Dr. Angelico is a cardiothoracic surgeon practicing in the Lehigh Valley
area of Pennsylvania. Over the years, Angelico enjoyed privileges in the operating rooms
of several of the Hospitals. Angelico alleges that in 1994 he was denied privileges at
each of the Hospitals despite being a well-renowned surgeon.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants on
Angelico’s antitrust claims, stating that he lacked standing. This court reversed.
Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 184 F.3d 268, 275 (3d Cir. 1999). The case
proceeded to trial in February and March 2001, at the conclusion of which the jury found
for the Defendants on all counts. The District Court rejected Angelico’s request for
amendment of the judgment or, alternatively, for a new trial.
Two issues lingered after the trial was complete and the District Court had
entered judgment for the Defendants. The District Court found that Lehigh Valley
Hospital was immune from liability for proceedings it conducted regarding Angelico.
The Court also quashed a post-verdict subpoena that sought documents previously
withheld from Angelico.
1. Defendants Panebianco-Yip H eart Surgeons, Bethlehem Cardiothoracic
Surgical A ssociates, PC , Brian M . Peters, and Post & Schell, PC are no longer in this
suit.
3
At trial, Angelico was represented by counsel, but in this appeal he
proceeds pro se. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Jury Verdict
Angelico alleges that the jury’s verdict as to (1) breach of contract by
Lehigh Valley Hospital and St. Luke’s Hospital, and (2) exclusive dealing by Lehigh
Valley Hospital was against the weight of the evidence. It is axiomatic that this Court
should afford great deference to jury decisions. Herman v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.,
524 F.2d 767, 771 (3d Cir. 1975) (“Given our standard of review of jury verdicts and the
right of a defendant to a jury trial, we should not lightly reverse a jury verdict which has
absolved a defendant of liability.”). Unless the record shows a miscarriage of justice or
the verdict cries out to be overturned or shocks our conscience, the District Court should
sustain a jury verdict. Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc., 174 F.3d 352, 366 (3d Cir. 1999)
(internal citations omitted). This Court reviews the District Court’s decision on a motion
to overturn a jury verdict for abuse of discretion. Id. at 365. Under this very strict
standard, as there was ample evidence in favor of the Hospitals, we do not have occasion
to overturn the jury’s verdict or the District Court’s order pursuant to it.
B. Admissibility of Evidence
Angelico argues the District Court acted improperly during trial by
preventing him from introducing certain statements as evidence. Our standard of review
4
over the District Court’s determinations on admissibility of evidence is abuse of
discretion. Honeywell, Inc. v. Am. Standards Testing Bureau, Inc., 851 F.2d 652, 656 (3d
Cir. 1988). Angelico asserts that the statements he sought to introduce satisfy an
exception to the hearsay rule of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We are not persuaded,
however, that the District Court abused its discretion in precluding Angelico from
introducing the statements.
C. Mode of Trial
Angelico alleges the District Court held him to an “improper, disparate, and
prejudicial standard” by making a statement to the jury that indicated he was not paying
attention at trial and by cautioning Angelico and some of Angelico’s witnesses that they
should be responsive to questions asked. On a search of the record, we find nothing that
compels us to believe the District Court committed error by making comments to the jury
or to Angelico and his witnesses. “The trial judge’s role is to preside over the trial;
passively if possible but aggressively when indicated.” Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co.,
80 F.3d 777, 788 (3d Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Evid. 611(a). The District Court acted
within these boundaries.
D. Post-Verdict Discovery
Angelico contends the District Court improperly quashed a post-verdict
subpoena for information from a non-party. We affirm the District Court’s order under
an abuse of discretion review. See Brumfield v. Sanders, 232 F.3d 376, 380 (3d Cir.
5
2000) (noting that the standard of review for scope or opportunity for discovery is abuse
of discretion). It seems entirely reasonable, and in fact preferable, for the District Court
to cut off discovery once a jury has returned a verdict. Angelico is correct that this Court
affirmed a District Court’s allowance of post-verdict discovery where such discovery was
relevant to matters still pending before the court. Hewlett v. Davis, 844 F.2d 109, 115 (3d
Cir. 1988). Unlike Hewlett, however, the only remaining issue before the District Court
when Angelico sought additional discovery was unrelated to his discovery request.
Additionally, Angelico posits that the quashing of the subpoena was
inappropriate because the party challenging the subpoena had no standing to do so. We
disagree. We will thus affirm the District Court’s order denying post-verdict discovery.
E. Immunity
The District Court found that Lehigh Valley Hospital was immune for
proceedings it conducted regarding Angelico.
The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (“HCQIA”) provides
immunity for professional review boards acting in a disciplinary capacity, so long as four
requirements are met. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11111-11112. The action must be taken: (1) in
reasonable belief of furthering quality health care; (2) after reasonable fact-finding; (3)
with adequate notice and a hearing; and (4) in reasonable belief the action is warranted
based on the facts. 42 U.S.C. § 11112(a); see also Mathews v. Lancaster Gen. Hosp., 87
F.3d 624, 633 n.3 (3d Cir. 1996). We find, as did the District Court, that Angelico failed
6
to rebut HCQIA’s presumption that the Hospital is entitled to immunity. 42 U.S.C. §
11112(a).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the judgments entered by the
District Court.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
_________________________________
Circuit Judge
7