Changes

''[[BCB Anesthesia Care v. Passavant Memorial Area Hosp. Ass’n]]'', 36 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 1994) ("Although we hesitate to say that [a staffing decision at one hospital] . . . can never state an antitrust claim, we believe it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead some additional facts from which it can be inferred that the case falls within the ambit of the Sherman Act." ''Seglin v. Esau, supra''. [769 F.2d 1274 (7th Cir.1985)] Before we enlist this court in the micromanagement of the staffing arrangements at Passavant under the aegis of the antitrust laws, we need better reasons than the plaintiffs have given us.").

''[[BCB Anesthesia Care v. Passavant Memorial Area Hosp. Ass’n]]'', 36 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 1994) ("Although we hesitate to say that [a staffing decision at one hospital] . . . can never state an antitrust claim, we believe it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead some additional facts from which it can be inferred that the case falls within the ambit of the Sherman Act." ''Seglin v. Esau, supra''. [769 F.2d 1274 (7th Cir.1985)] Before we enlist this court in the micromanagement of the staffing arrangements at Passavant under the aegis of the antitrust laws, we need better reasons than the plaintiffs have given us.").

''[[Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.]]'', 467 U.S. 752 (1984)  

''[[Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.]]'', 467 U.S. 752 (1984) (general rule against a subsidiary being considered to have conspired with a parent corporation for the purposes of the [[Sherman Act]]).

''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).

''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).