Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-07163/USCOURTS-caDC-97-07163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 2, 1998 Decided September 17, 1998

No. 97-7163

Adam Ostrzenski,

Appellant

v.

Columbia Hospital for Women Foundation, Inc., et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 94cv02007)

---------

Stephen Rubin argued the cause for appellant, with whom

Maria Ostrzenska was on the briefs.

Lee H. Simowitz argued the cause for appellees, with

whom Jenifer M. Brown, Michael T. Wharton, Mary Anne

Mason, Lynda K. Marshall, Nicholas S. McConnell, Mark D.

Gately and John E. McCann, Jr. were on the brief.

USCA Case #97-7163 Document #391217 Filed: 10/23/1998 Page 1 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Henderson and Garland,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed Per Curiam

Per Curiam: Dr. Adam Ostrzenski appeals from a grant of

summary judgment dismissing his complaint against defendants under s 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. s 1. In his

complaint, Dr. Ostrzenski alleged that defendants--seven individual doctors and six hospitals at which they practiced--

participated in an unlawful group boycott intended to destroy

his practice. Specifically, Dr. Ostrzenski asserted that the

individual physician defendants perceived him as an economic

threat to their practices and manipulated the peer review

processes at the defendant hospitals to deny him privileges to

practice advanced laparoscopy, a technique for gynecological

surgery involving the use of a laser. The defendants moved

for summary judgment, arguing that the actions taken

against Dr. Ostrzenski were the result of legitimate peer

review decisions, based on defendants' concerns over Dr.

Ostrzenski's medical competence.

In order to prevail on a claim under s 1 of the Sherman

Act, a plaintiff must show the existence of an illegal conspiracy to restrain competition. Antitrust law, moreover, "limits

the range of permissible inferences from ambiguous evidence

in a s 1 case," and teaches that "conduct as consistent with

permissible competition as with illegal conspiracy does not,

standing alone, support an inference of antitrust conspiracy."

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.

574, 588 (1986). In the circumstances of this case, Ostrzenski

was required to "present evidence 'that tends to exclude the

possibility' that the alleged conspirators," id., acted on the

basis of legitimate medical concerns, "rather than to implement" an anticompetitive conspiracy, id. at 598. See generally Mathews v. Lancaster Gen. Hosp., 87 F.3d 624, 640-41 (3d

Cir. 1996); Willman v. Heartland Hosp. East, 34 F.3d 605,

611-12 (8th Cir. 1994); Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 964 F.2d

116, 121 (2d Cir. 1992).

The record amply justifies the district court's determination that Dr. Ostrzenski lacked sufficient proof for a reasonable jury to find an antitrust conspiracy rather than a legitimate peer review process. For example, in one of the

incidents that led to his loss of all staff privileges at defendant

Columbia Hospital for Women, plaintiff set fire to a surgical

assistant's gown with a laser, burning a hole approximately

one foot in diameter. Plaintiff's counsel told the court below

that "[w]e don't dispute that it happened. We dispute its

relevance, its importance as a basis to deny Dr. Ostrzenski

laparoscopic privileges." This court has no difficulty in seeing the relevance and importance of that incident as a legitimate, rather than anticompetitive basis for denying plaintiff

staff privileges.

We take as a second example one of the incidents that led

to plaintiff's loss of all staff privileges at defendant George

Washington University Hospital: An anesthesiologist reportUSCA Case #97-7163 Document #391217 Filed: 10/23/1998 Page 2 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ed seeing extensive swelling while Dr. Ostrzenski was instilling a patient with carbon dioxide. According to the anesthesiologist's report, Dr. Ostrzenski "did not seem to be aware of

the seriousness of this situation even though the patient's life

was in danger at one point." To the contrary, Dr. Ostrzenski

wanted to continue the procedure, and only repeated requests

by the anesthesiologist persuaded him otherwise. Although

defendants pointed to the submission of this report as one of

the important catalysts of action against Dr. Ostrzenski,

plaintiff does not contend that the anesthesiologist--who is

neither a defendant nor a competitor of plaintiff's--had any

anticompetitive motive to file a false report. Instead, plaintiff

charges that the signed report "must" have been fabricated.

Plaintiff, however, offered no evidence whatsoever to support

that charge and did not even attempt to depose the anesthesiologist. Under these circumstances, plaintiff's bare allegation

does not suffice to create a genuine issue as to the authenticity of the document.

In light of a record replete with incidents such as those just

described, we conclude that no reasonable jury could find

plaintiff was denied hospital staff privileges as the result of an

unlawful antitrust conspiracy, rather than because of concern

about his medical competence. Accordingly, summary judgment for defendants was appropriate and we affirm the

decision of the district court.

USCA Case #97-7163 Document #391217 Filed: 10/23/1998 Page 3 of 3