Changes

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)  

Mathews v. Lancaster Gen. Hosp., 87 F.3d 624 (3d Cir. 1996)

''Mathews v. Lancaster Gen. Hosp.'', 87 F.3d 624 (3d Cir. 1996) (affirmed summary judgment under [[HCQIA]] immunity on a Sherman Act Section 1 claim because the plaintiff-physician did not provide evidence of a concerted action and an antitrust injury)

''Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp.'', 465 U.S. 752 (1984) (affirming a jury verdict in a price-fixing case under [[Sherman_Antitrust_Act#Section_One|Section 1]] of the [[Sherman Act]]).

''Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp.'', 465 U.S. 752 (1984) (affirming a jury verdict in a price-fixing case under [[Sherman_Antitrust_Act#Section_One|Section 1]] of the [[Sherman Act]]).

''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) (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).

''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 restriction and then 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).