| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| | ''[[Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.]]'', 467 U.S. 752 (1984) | | ''[[Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.]]'', 467 U.S. 752 (1984) |
| | | | |
| − | Gabaldoni v. Washington County. Hospital Ass'n, 250 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2001) | + | ''Gabaldoni v. Washington County. Hospital Ass'n'', 250 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment by the district court in a lawsuit challenging a termination of a physician's clinical privileges and denied his application for reappointment to the medical staff, in a lawsuit contract and tort claims against hospital entities; there were no [[antitrust]] or [[Sherman Act]] claims in this case). |
| | | | |
| − | Hein-Muniz v. Aiken Regional Med. Ctrs., 532 Fed. App’x 342 (4th Cir. 2013) | + | Hein-Muniz v. Aiken Regional Med. Ctrs., 532 Fed. App’x 342 (4th Cir. 2013) (affirming summary judgment against a physician who challenged a hospital's termination of his privileges, but no mention of [[antitrust]] or the [[Sherman Act]] in this appeal or in district court. Instead the claims were for: breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, violations of the South Carolina and the United States Constitutions and HCQIA, illegality, conspiracy, unfair trade practices, breach of fiduciary duty, and interference with prospective contract. Relief sought included declaratory judgment, actual and compensatory damages, punitive damages, special damages, injunction, and attorney's fees.). |
| | | | |
| | Imperial v. Suburban Hosp. Ass’n, 37 F.3d 1026 (4th Cir. 1994) | | Imperial v. Suburban Hosp. Ass’n, 37 F.3d 1026 (4th Cir. 1994) |
| Line 31: |
Line 31: |
| | Torbett v. Wheeling Dollar Sav. & Tr. Co., 314 S.E.2d 166 (W. Va. 1983) | | Torbett v. Wheeling Dollar Sav. & Tr. Co., 314 S.E.2d 166 (W. Va. 1983) |
| | | | |
| − | Tshibaka v. Sernulka, 673 Fed. App’x. 272 (4th Cir. 2016) (hospital “[i]mmunity applies unless—viewing the totality of the circumstances in an objectively reasonable manner—the aggrieved physician rebuts the presumption that the professional review action satisfied HCQIA.”) | + | ''Tshibaka v. Sernulka'', 673 Fed. App’x. 272 (4th Cir. 2016) (hospital “[i]mmunity applies unless—viewing the totality of the circumstances in an objectively reasonable manner—the aggrieved physician rebuts the presumption that the professional review action satisfied HCQIA.” The [[Fourth Circuit]] thereby affirmed a district court grant of [[summary judgment]] to the hospital and its CEO, while remanding in favor of plaintiff's claim for defamation). |
| | | | |
| | ''Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr.'', 562 F.3d 599, 601 (4th Cir. 2009) ("The district court concluded most of Wahi's claims were barred because CAMC qualified for immunity from suit under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act ("HCQIA" or "the Act"), 42 U.S.C.A. § 11101, et seq. (West 2005). For this reason, and because the district court found Wahi's other claims failed on the merits, the court awarded CAMC and [its Executive VP and CMO] summary judgment."). | | ''Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr.'', 562 F.3d 599, 601 (4th Cir. 2009) ("The district court concluded most of Wahi's claims were barred because CAMC qualified for immunity from suit under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act ("HCQIA" or "the Act"), 42 U.S.C.A. § 11101, et seq. (West 2005). For this reason, and because the district court found Wahi's other claims failed on the merits, the court awarded CAMC and [its Executive VP and CMO] summary judgment."). |