Ricks

Dr. John Smith, a cardiologist, was removed from the staff of Good Samaritan Hospital. After a lengthy peer review process, the reviewing doctors and the hospital concluded that Dr. Smith’s performance was below acceptable standards of care and that removal from the hospital staff was necessary to ensure patient safety. Dr. Smith responded by filing a complaint in federal court alleging that the doctors and the hospital had engaged in an antitrust conspiracy against him and violated his due process rights.

The district court granted summary judgment and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in favor of defendants (“Good Samaritan”). The district court held that Good Samaritan was immune from federal antitrust liability pursuant to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (“HCQIA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11101-52 , which shields peer review participants from liability if certain review standards are met. The district court also held that Good Samaritan was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 11113 . Furthermore, the district court imposed $2,000 in Rule 11 sanctions against Dr. Smith’s attorney, Jerome Berg. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §…