2021-22, 90 L.Ed.2d 445 (1986) (upholding FTC’s ruling that dentists violated antitrust laws by agreeing to withhold x-rays from insurers); Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 29-31, 104 S.Ct. 1551, 1567-68, 80 L.Ed.2d 2 (1984) (upholding exclusive contract between anesthesiologists and hospital); Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc’y, 457 U.S. 332, 348-49, 102 S.Ct. 2466, 2475, 73 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982) (finding physicians’ price-fixing agreement violative of antitrust laws). Nor can it fairly be said that a health care professional cannot under any circumstances state a cause of action under the Sherman Act against a hospital review committee for denial of staff privileges. Summit Health Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322, 332, 111 S.Ct. 1842, 1848, 114 L.Ed.2d 366 (1991) (<HOLDING>); cf. Health Care Quality Improvement Act of
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 plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act 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 that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce