Changes

''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)

''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)

Moore v. Williamsburg Regional Hosp., 560 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2009)  

''Moore v. Williamsburg Regional Hosp.'', 560 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2009) (not an antitrust case, the Fourth Circuit applied HCQIA immunity to affirm summary judgment for a hospital in a lawsuit brought by a physician who challenged his summary suspension)

''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)).