The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an opinion in *Atlantic Anesthesia, P.A. v. Lehrer*, a complex medical practice dispute that reached the state's highest court through interlocutory appeal. The case, designated as Case No. 2024-0005 and cited as 2025 N.H. 42, involves multiple parties in what appears to be a contractual and business relationship dispute within the healthcare industry.
The litigation involves three separate but related cases that were consolidated for appeal. The primary dispute is between Atlantic Anesthesia, P.A. and North American Partners in Anesthesia (New Hampshire) LLP against Dr. Ira Lehrer. A second case involves the same plaintiffs against Dr. Nathan Jorgensen and other parties. The third case features Wentworth-Douglass Hospital as plaintiff against Atlantic Anesthesia, P.A. and associated parties.
The case originated in the Hillsborough-northern judicial district and came before the Supreme Court on interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 8. This procedural posture indicates that the appeal was taken before final judgment in the trial court, suggesting the presence of significant legal issues that warranted immediate appellate review.
Oral arguments were held on Oct. 30, 2024, with the court issuing its opinion on Sept. 16, 2025. The extended timeline between argument and decision suggests the complexity of the legal issues involved and the careful consideration given by the justices.
The parties were represented by prominent law firms with healthcare expertise. Atlantic Anesthesia, P.A. and North American Partners in Anesthesia (New Hampshire) LLP were represented by Holland & Knight LLP of Boston, with W. Scott O'Connell handling both brief writing and oral argument. Nixon Peabody LLP of Manchester also represented these parties, with Nathan P. Warecki and Erin S. Bucksbaum contributing to the brief.
Wentworth-Douglass Hospital retained Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. of Concord, with William E. Christie handling both brief and oral argument responsibilities. The hospital also utilized the services of Horty, Springer & Mattern, P.C. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with Daniel Mulholland III and Mary Paterni contributing to the brief. This choice of co-counsel suggests the involvement of specialized healthcare law expertise.
The physician defendants - Dr. Ira Lehrer, Dr. Nathan Jorgensen, and Dr. George Kenton Allen - were represented by Orr & Reno, P.A. of Concord. Derek D. Lick and Elizabeth C. Velez worked on the brief, while Derek D. Lick presented oral arguments.
While the full opinion content is not available in the provided materials, the case structure suggests disputes typical of medical practice business relationships. Such cases often involve issues including non-compete agreements, partnership dissolution, breach of contract claims, and disputes over patient relationships and referral patterns.
The involvement of North American Partners in Anesthesia (New Hampshire) LLP alongside Atlantic Anesthesia, P.A. as co-plaintiffs suggests potential corporate restructuring or acquisition activity that may have triggered the underlying disputes. North American Partners in Anesthesia is a national anesthesia management company, indicating this case may involve the complexities that arise when large healthcare corporations acquire or partner with local medical practices.
Wentworth-Douglass Hospital's position as both defendant in some claims and plaintiff against Atlantic Anesthesia suggests a triangular dispute involving hospital privileges, exclusive service contracts, or similar institutional relationships that are common in healthcare provider arrangements.
The interlocutory appeal procedure used in this case is relatively uncommon and typically reserved for situations where immediate appellate review is necessary to prevent irreparable harm or where the trial court has certified that an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
Justice Countway authored the opinion, though the full text and ultimate holdings are not included in the available materials. The case represents the type of complex commercial healthcare litigation that has become increasingly common as the medical industry has evolved toward larger corporate structures and more sophisticated business arrangements.
The timing of the case, with arguments in late 2024 and decision in 2025, places it among recent precedents that may influence how New Hampshire courts handle similar healthcare business disputes. The multi-party nature and interlocutory appeal status suggest the case involved significant legal questions that warranted immediate judicial attention.
The opinion remains subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 and formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports, as indicated in the standard notice accompanying New Hampshire Supreme Court opinions. This procedural notation reminds practitioners that the opinion may be subject to modification before final publication.