Bartko Pavia Secures Landmark California Appellate Victory, on Behalf of one of its Hospital Clients, Reviving Antitrust Claims Against MultiPlan

For best results when printing this announcement, please click on link below: Bartko Pavia Secures Landmark California Appellate Victory, on Behalf of one of its Hospital Clients, Reviving Antitrust Claims Against MultiPlan First-of-Its-Kind Published Decision Holds That Health Insurer Reimbursements to Hospitals and Physicians Are Prices Subject to California Antitrust Law Bartko Pavia won a groundbreaking appellate victory that could reshape healthcare antitrust litigation nationwide.

In a first of its kind decision, the California Court of Appeal held that health insurer reimbursements to hospitals and physicians are prices that if fixed through collusive conduct, are subject to antitrust scrutiny. This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: The unanimous decision, certified for publication on September 21, 2026, revives antitrust claims brought by the VHS Liquidating Trust against MultiPlan Corporation. The reversal of the trial court’s erroneous ruling will greatly benefit California’s healthcare industry, especially providers.

As the Court of Appeal stated, “we note with concern that the trial court’s ruling would appear to exempt a significant portion of the healthcare industry from antitrust scrutiny, particularly when coupled with trial courts’ repeated refusal to allow subscribers to challenge similar conduct,” that otherwise would have placed a substantial segment of the healthcare industry beyond antitrust scrutiny. The published decision, VHS Liquidating Trust v.

, reversed the dismissal of claims alleging that MultiPlan served as the hub of a conspiracy through which competing insurers coordinated reimbursement rates for out-of-network healthcare services, suppressing payments to hospitals and healthcare providers. The Court held that reimbursements paid by insurers to healthcare providers are prices subject to California's Cartwright Act and found "no basis for exempting this category of payments from the broad reach" of California antitrust law.

According to allegations detailed in the complaint, MultiPlan's repricing platform is used by more than 700 insurers, including each of the nation's fifteen largest health insurers, to reprice approximately 370,000 out-of-network claims every day. '" With "human touch," the rate of insurer adherence to MultiPlan's recommendations rises to 95 percent. 4 percent of the time. In addition, MultiPlan touts its universal adoption among the insurance industry's major players, both publicly and privately, so all of the insurers knew that their competitors were generally adhering to the pricing scheme.

" The lawsuit alleges that those practices enabled insurers to suppress provider reimbursements both for in-network and out-of-network services below competitive levels. The ruling revives claims brought by the VHS Liquidating Trust, the successor to Verity Health System, which at one time, was one of California's largest nonprofit hospital systems. The Trust alleges that artificially depressed reimbursement rates by insurance companies caused it significant harm.

"MultiPlan is a landmark antitrust decision, recognizing that California’s antitrust laws are broader and deeper than federal law and that healthcare providers are protected by such laws from anticompetitive practices by insurers and their co-conspirators, such as MultiPlan,” said Patrick M. Ryan, Co-Managing Partner of Bartko Pavia and lead appellate counsel for the VHS Liquidating Trust. "The Court made clear that if insurers coordinate the amounts they pay hospitals and physicians, that’s price fixing. Calling it 'repricing' doesn't change what it is — price fixing.

" Ryan added: "For years, insurers have argued that provider reimbursements are somehow beyond the reach of the antitrust laws. But the Court of Appeal flatly rejected that argument. " He continued: "The opinion at long last kicks open the courthouse doors to hospitals and providers harmed by anticompetitive coordinated reimbursement practices. " The Court also reaffirmed that California's Cartwright Act is "broader in range and deeper in reach than the Sherman Act," extending that principle directly to healthcare reimbursement practices and alleged coordination among insurers.

The case now returns to the trial court for further proceedings. Bartko Pavia represents the VHS Liquidating Trust through a team consisting of: Patrick M. Ryan Marisa C. Livesay Chad E.

DeVeaux Brittany N. DeJong Daven Lowhurst Kelly Ann Coleman Ian Papendick Tyler M. Cunningham Kenneth Richard Sean R. McTigue Steve Vieux P.

Casey Mathews Scott W. Glassmoyer John “Jack” McLean Case Information Case: VHS Liquidating Trust v. MultiPlan Corporation et al. : CGC-21-594966 Decision Certified for Publication: September 21, 2026 About Bartko Pavia LLP Bartko Pavia LLP is a powerhouse litigation and transactional firm representing both plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes commercial disputes, real estate transactions, class actions, antitrust matters, labor and employment litigation, and bet-the-company cases.

The firm is known for combining elite legal talent with a client-focused, service-oriented culture that prioritizes practical business solutions over conventional law firm metrics. Bartko Pavia’s team includes numerous former in-house counsel and business leaders who bring real-world experience to their practice. com: Media Contact Patrick M. 4540