title: Federal antitrust jurisdiction in peer review cases: the Pinhas decision.
abstract: In Summit Health Ltd. v. Pinhas, the United States Supreme Court by a narrow majority found that the exclusion of an ophthalmologist from a hospital in Los Angeles had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce to establish federal jurisdiction under the Sherman Act. In resolving a split among the federal circuit courts of appeal, the Court applied the broad jurisdictional test from McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc. to peer review proceedings. Despite many ambiguities in the majority opinion by Justice Stevens and a scathing dissent by Justice Scalia, the effect of Pinhas will be to increase the suits in federal court on antitrust grounds brought by aggrieved medical staff members and applicants denied appointments or privileges, and to decrease, if not eliminate, the likelihood of preliminary dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. This, in turn, should serve to emphasize the importance of complying with the Health Care Quality Improvement Act in order to obtain immunity from damages under federal antitrust and state laws.
authors: R C
authors: RC
authors: Busey
mesh_terms: D016363:Antitrust Laws; D003132:Commerce / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006744:Hospital Bed Capacity, 100 to 299; D015141:Los Angeles; D008504:Medical Staff Privileges / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D009885:Ophthalmology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D010380:Peer Review / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States