Court denies request for class action status in Delta Dental case

A recent decision by a federal district court on September 22 has halted a group of dentists’ attempt to pursue a class action lawsuit against Delta Dental for alleged antitrust violations. Despite this setback, the case is still moving forward, and the plaintiffs have the option to seek permission from the court of appeals to challenge this ruling by submitting a petition before October 6.

The American Dental Association (ADA) initiated the class action lawsuit in 2019, accusing Delta Dental Plans and the Delta Dental Plans Association of breaching antitrust laws by engaging in activities such as decreasing reimbursements to participating dentists, setting prices for specific dental services and goods, and limiting competition from other dental providers. The plaintiffs are hoping to secure financial compensation for class members and compel Delta to modify its business practices.

Additionally, various individual dentists filed separate class action complaints against Delta, which were later consolidated into a single unified complaint. Approximately 240,000 dental providers are thought to have suffered due to the alleged anticompetitive actions of Delta Dental, prompting the plaintiffs to request that the case be permitted to represent a nationwide class of Delta providers.

In their ruling, the court emphasized that Delta Dental had acknowledged its involvement in an agreement identified by the plaintiffs as anti-competitive. The key question during the class certification process was determining the extent of the impact on dental providers across the country. As patients typically seek dental care in locations convenient to them, and Delta Dental’s market share varies significantly by state, the court could not find adequate evidence to support claims that the anti-competitive conduct affected the majority of dental providers nationwide.

“The plaintiffs strongly dispute the court’s assessment,” remarked Scott Fowkes, J.D., ADA general counsel. Economic expert Dr. Gustavo E. Bamberger, who devised a model to analyze the impact on class members, stated that over 99% of the class had suffered gross harm, with more than 98% experiencing net harm due to Delta Dental’s anticompetitive behavior. Dr. Bamberger’s testimony indicated that damages in the form of reduced reimbursements were inflicted on the class members as a result of Delta Dental’s anti-competitive practices, irrespective of state-specific variations.

Should the appellate court authorize the plaintiffs to appeal the ruling, the trial will proceed while the appeal remains pending unless a stay is imposed by either the appellate or district court. The recent decision regarding class certification does not immediately affect the ability of dental providers to seek redress in the case.