Changes

''Oksanen v. Page Memorial Hosp.'', 945 F.2d 696, 699  (4th Cir.1991) (en banc) (affirming summary judgment affirmed based on intra-corporate doctrine: "the Board of Trustees and the medical staff of Page Memorial comprised a single entity during the peer review process. Because an entity cannot conspire with itself, the Board and the staff lacked the capacity to conspire.  While the members of a medical staff may have the capacity to conspire among themselves, such a conspiracy did not occur in this case. We likewise affirm the district court's dismissal of Oksanen's other claims and its refusal to cloak in federal antitrust law what is in essence a workplace dispute.") (citing ''Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.'', 467 U.S. 752 (1984)).

''Oksanen v. Page Memorial Hosp.'', 945 F.2d 696, 699  (4th Cir.1991) (en banc) (affirming summary judgment affirmed based on intra-corporate doctrine: "the Board of Trustees and the medical staff of Page Memorial comprised a single entity during the peer review process. Because an entity cannot conspire with itself, the Board and the staff lacked the capacity to conspire.  While the members of a medical staff may have the capacity to conspire among themselves, such a conspiracy did not occur in this case. We likewise affirm the district court's dismissal of Oksanen's other claims and its refusal to cloak in federal antitrust law what is in essence a workplace dispute.") (citing ''Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.'', 467 U.S. 752 (1984)).

''Poliner v. Tex. Health Sys.'', 537 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2008) (reversal of a jury trial judgment for the physician)

''Poliner v. Tex. Health Sys.'', 537 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2008) (reversal of a jury trial judgment for the physician).

Sugarbaker v. SSM Health Care, 190 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 1999)  

''Sugarbaker v. SSM Health Care'', 190 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 1999) (applying [[HCQIA]] immunity to affirm a grant of summary judgment against a [[Sherman Act]] claim for the termination of hospital [[medical staff privileges]] of a physician).

''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).

''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).