In affirming certification of RICO claims of all medical doctors providing services to any person insured by one of the major HMOs from 1990 thru the date of certification, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Fifth Circuit’s statement in Castano that “a fraud class action cannot be certified when individual reliance will be an issue”; rather, due to the nature of the misrepresentations,”the circumstantial evidence that can be used to show reliance is common to the whole class.” The Eleventh Circuit also rejected Castano’s “immature tort” theory, noting that, “There is no reason why, even with so-called ‘immature torts,’ district and circuit courts cannot make necessary determinations under Rule 23 based on the pleadings and whatever evidence has been gathered through discovery.” The panel then rejected the pronouncements in cases like Rhone-Poulenc and Castano to the effect that “the fate of an entire industry cannot be left in the hands of a single jury.” The Court stated “if their fears are truly justified, the defendants can blame no one but themselves. It would be unjust to allow corporations to engage in rampant and systematic wrongdoing, and then allow them to avoid a class action because the consequences of being held responsible for their misdeeds would be financially ruinous.” Finally, the Court rejects Castano’s idea that class certification, in and of itself, is a form of “judicial blackmail”. The Court noted that, “while affirming certification may induce some defendants to settle, overturning certification may create similar ‘hydraulic’ pressures on the plaintiffs, causing them to either settle or ? more likely ? abandon their claims altogether… Because one of the parties will generally be disadvantaged regardless of how a court rules on certification, this factor should not be weighed.” Klay v. Humana, 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 877 (2005).