Changes

''Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr.'', 562 F.3d 599, 601 (4th Cir. 2009) ("The district court concluded most of Wahi's claims were barred because CAMC qualified for immunity from suit under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act ("HCQIA" or "the Act"), 42 U.S.C.A. § 11101, et seq. (West 2005). For this reason, and because the district court found Wahi's other claims failed on the merits, the court awarded CAMC and [its Executive VP and CMO] summary judgment.").

''Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr.'', 562 F.3d 599, 601 (4th Cir. 2009) ("The district court concluded most of Wahi's claims were barred because CAMC qualified for immunity from suit under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act ("HCQIA" or "the Act"), 42 U.S.C.A. § 11101, et seq. (West 2005). For this reason, and because the district court found Wahi's other claims failed on the merits, the court awarded CAMC and [its Executive VP and CMO] summary judgment.").

''Wieters v. Roper Hosp.'', 58 Fed. App’x 40, 41, 46 (4th Cir. 2003) ("The district court granted summary judgment to the hospital on immunity grounds, and we affirm. ...  Although [the physician] has pointed out parts of the process that did not hew strictly to the bylaws and the safe harbor provisions, he has presented nothing that would lead a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the hospital treated him unfairly under the circumstances.”).

''Wieters v. Roper Hosp.'', 58 Fed. App’x 40, 41, 46 (4th Cir. 2003) ("The district court granted summary judgment to the hospital on immunity grounds, and we affirm. ...  Although [the physician] has pointed out parts of the process that did not hew strictly to the bylaws and the safe harbor provisions, he has presented nothing that would lead a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the hospital treated him unfairly under the circumstances.” This case did not involve [[antitrust]] or the [[Sherman Act]]).

== Non-hospital antitrust cases ==

== Non-hospital antitrust cases ==