MOTION OF PHYSICIANS ADVOCACY COUNCIL, INC. (PAC), TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF

Pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Physicians Advocacy Council, Inc. ("PAC") respectfully moves for leave to file the accompanying brief amicus curiae in support of the complaint filed by the American Association of Physicians & Surgeons, Inc.

PAC provided both parties with timely notice along with its request for consent to file its brief amicus. Plaintiff has given written consent. Defendants have not responded.

PAC was founded in 2013 and is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in California. No publicly traded company owns any stock in amicus. PAC represents physicians of a great variety of disciplines throughout California, who are directly affected by consequences and impacts of AB 72 (the "Act") upon the medical profession, and millions of patients in the State of California. The mission of PAC is, in part, to preserve, protect, and defend the individual and constitutional rights of physicians and patients.

PAC's activities on behalf of physicians and their patients include education (providing professional advice and guidance to assist practicing physicians deliver optimal care to patients) and advocacy (informing physicians about public policies as well as formulating positions to improve the quality of medical care available to consumers).

PAC has a direct and vital interest in this litigation concerning the constitutional rights of physicians and their patients. PAC holds an important perspective on the doctor-patient relationship and wishes to present facts highlighting the adverse impact the Act has on this special bond.

The statutes stemming from the Act harm many California physicians, including targeted out-of-network ("OON") physicians who do not contract with patients' insurance companies. The Act unjustly supplants contracts between patients and their personal physicians by conscripting OON physicians to ad hoc, de facto "contracts" with insurance companies whereby targeted OON physicians must charge and collect from insurance companies delayed, discounted, and derisive payments — but get nothing in return. Subjugated physicians, who did not — or could not — contract with these insurance companies have only illusory or punitive recourses.

By implementing the Act, the State of California chose to benefit insurance companies and their related third parties including risk-bearing physician groups that compete with physicians who are harmed by the Act. The State of California insures many of its employees and therefore its financial interests are aligned with those of insurance companies. The State is benefiting from the Act and thus cannot claim sovereign immunity. Were state legislation seemingly not immune from anti-trust laws, the horizontal price-fixing scheme promoted by insurance companies and their related risk-bearing physician groups would constitute an illegal restraint of trade as a matter of federal law.

Because of the importance of the significant and complex physician/patient issues, and the multiple constitutional issues raised by the Act and this subject case, PAC respectfully requests that its motion for leave to file the accompanying brief amicus curiae be granted by the Court.

ORDER ON MOTION OF PHYSICIANS ADVOCACY COUNCIL, INC. (PAC) TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

The Physicians Advocacy Council, Inc. has moved, pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Proceedings, for leave of the court to file a brief amicus curiae in this matter.

The court, with good cause appearing, hereby approves the Physicians Advocacy Council, Inc.'s motion and hereby orders same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.