A licensee charging that a board violated antitrust law may not simply allege that "the parties agreed," said the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in a January 20 ruling. The case was brought by a veterinarian who contended that a disciplinary action against him stemmed from anticompetitive motivations. The court found that "the ultimate existence of an agreement under antitrust law is a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation, and thus plaintiff must allege facts affirmatively demonstrating such an agreement" (Robb v. Connecticut Board of Veterinary Medicine, 2016 WL 236209).
The content you are trying to access is only available to members. Sorry.