are almost identical to the claims of the third party insurers and health and welfare trust funds. “[N]o amount of semantic gymnastics can detract from the conclusion that [plaintiffs’] claims are completely derivative of the personal injuries to [smokers] allegedly caused by the defendants’ conduct.” Regence Blueshield, 40 F.Supp.2d at 1184. Plaintiffs further allege that their special relationship with patients confers standing, relying in part upon the decisions in Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 112-13, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (ruling that respondent-physicians suffered concrete injury from an antiabortion statute that denied physicians Medicaid reimbursement for abortions not “medically indicated”); and Lee v. State of Oregon, 869 F.Supp. 1491, 1494-95 (D.Or.1994) (<HOLDING>). These cases have allowed doctors to challenge
holding doctors had third party standing to challenge physicianassisted suicide based on showing of direct financial impact on their practices holding that a litigant may not claim standing to assert the rights of a third party holding that a corporation had standing to challenge discriminatory practices that led to the cutting off of its grant funding holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant