Changes

''Am. Chiropractic v. Trigon Healthcare'', 367 F.3d 212, 217-18, 224 (4th Cir. 2004) (the lawsuit challenged an alleged "conspiracy that used Trigon's reimbursement policies and treatment guidelines to limit severely the flow of insurance dollars to chiropractors and steer those monies toward medical doctors. The district court [held for defendant], dismissing two counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim and disposing of the remaining counts by granting Trigon's motion for summary judgment. [The Fourth Circuit affirmed on different grounds.] ... [M]edical doctors, in their role as members of the peer review committee, had a unity of interest with the hospital: ensuring patient care. We believe that ''Oksanen'''s reasoning is not only instructive but persuasive here.").

''Am. Chiropractic v. Trigon Healthcare'', 367 F.3d 212, 217-18, 224 (4th Cir. 2004) (the lawsuit challenged an alleged "conspiracy that used Trigon's reimbursement policies and treatment guidelines to limit severely the flow of insurance dollars to chiropractors and steer those monies toward medical doctors. The district court [held for defendant], dismissing two counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim and disposing of the remaining counts by granting Trigon's motion for summary judgment. [The Fourth Circuit affirmed on different grounds.] ... [M]edical doctors, in their role as members of the peer review committee, had a unity of interest with the hospital: ensuring patient care. We believe that ''Oksanen'''s reasoning is not only instructive but persuasive here.").

''[[Austin v. McNamara]]'', 979 F.2d 728 (9th Cir. 1992) (This precedent has been widely followed to exclude evidence of bad faith from lawsuits against hospitals for sham peer review.  The [[Ninth Circuit]] affirmed a grant of summary judgment to the defendant hospital and doctors affiliated with it.)

''[[Austin v. McNamara]]'', 979 F.2d 728 (9th Cir. 1992) (This precedent has been widely followed to exclude evidence of bad faith from lawsuits against hospitals for sham peer review.  The [[Ninth Circuit]] affirmed a grant of summary judgment to the defendant hospital and doctors affiliated with it.).

''[[BCB Anesthesia Care v. Passavant Memorial Area Hosp. Ass’n]]'', 36 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 1994) (in affirming a dismissal of a claim by nurse anesthetists at a central Illinois hospital the court held,  "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) (in affirming a dismissal of a claim by nurse anesthetists at a central Illinois hospital the court held,  "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.").

''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).

''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.).

''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)

''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)