| | ''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.).nder | | ''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.).nder |
| − | 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) (applying HCQIA immunity to affirm a grant of summary judgment against damages, but found that HCQIA immunity did not apply to requests for injunctive but the plaintiff-physician who was denied reappointment to the medical staff had waived a claim for injunctive relief) |
| | ''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) |