Changes

'''Hospital antitrust''' concerns the many precedents relating to [[antitrust]] challenges to [[hospital]] [[monopoly|monopolization]].  Leading precedents include the following 18 decisions, of which many were on motions for [[summary judgment]]):

'''Hospital antitrust''' concerns the many precedents relating to [[antitrust]] challenges to [[hospital]] [[monopoly|monopolization]].  Leading precedents include the following 18 decisions, of which many were on motions for [[summary judgment]]:

''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.).

''[[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]]).

''[[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]]).

''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]]).

== Procedure ==

== Procedure ==