inquiry into the facts is appropriate before making a final decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction does not provide a proper basis for summary action in this Court. Having decided to take the case, however, it does seem to me that the Court should provide some enlightenment as to whether the Court of Appeals misread this Court’s opinions in Miller and Shaw v. Hunt. In my judgment, the petition for certiorari should be denied. 1 See Doe v. Esch, No. CV-93-060-GF-PGH (Nov. 26, 1993), App. to Pet. for Cert. 33a (enjoining State from enforcing the licensed physician provision against a physician assistant, supervised by a licensed physician, who has received approval from the State Board of Medical Examiners to conduct abortions); see also Mont. Code Ann. § 37-20-403 (1993) (<HOLDING>); id., § 37-20-303 (1995) (authorizing Board of
holding state law malpractice claim against a physician was preempted where the physician acting as the plan administrator denied a thallium stress test as a plan benefit holding that such a physician was a state actor under  1983 holding physician entitled to recover attorneys fees actually paid by malpractice insurer because physician was personally liable in the first instance recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician