and the facts the evidence can support. We review judgments n.o.v. de novo. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Dr. Boczar; and if the evidence substantially supports the jury’s verdict, we must reverse the JNOV. Watts v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 842 F.2d 307, 309-311 (11th Cir.1988). 2. Evidence in Support of the Verdict a. Evidence of Conspiracy to Restrain Trade Dr. Boczar presented sufficient evidence that the hospital conspired with others to restrain her practice of medicine. We have said that plaintiff physicians may properly rely on circumstantial evidence — “evidence of irrational conduct that would create an inference of conspiracy” — to prove a Sherman Act conspiracy claim. See Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 891 F.2d 810, 819 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Viewed in the light most favorable to her,
holding that hospitals may be found liable for conspiring with members of medical staff and that evidence of pretextual sham peer review proceedings presented jury question whether hospitals conspired with peer review committees in violation of sherman act recognizing confidentiality essential to function of medical peer review committees and to improvement of health care and protecting the records of such committees from discovery holding that physicians claim against peer review committee satisfied the interstate commerce jurisdictional requirements of the sherman act holding that the state privilege should not apply when the peer review records sought directly related to the allegations challenging the peer review process holding that a hospitals bylaws are an integral part of its contractual relationship with the members of its medical staff