IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 98-40697

_____________________
BRIAN R. PICKETT, M.D.,

Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

versus

HCA HOSPITAL CORPORATION, doing business as Woodland Heights Medical Center, also known as Woodland Heights Hospital, Lufkin, Texas, also known as HCA Hospital Corporation; ET AL.,

Defendants,

HCA HOSPITAL CORPORATION, doing business as Woodland Heights Medical Center, also known as Woodland Heights Hospital, Lufkin, Texas, also known as HCA Hospital Corporation,

Defendant - Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________
No. 98-40873

_____________________

BRIAN R. PICKETT, M.D.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HCA HOSPITAL CORPORATION, doing business as Woodland Heights Medical Center, also known as Woodland Heights Hospital, Lufkin, Texas, also known as HCA Hospital Corporation; ET AL.,

Defendants,

HCA HOSPITAL CORPORATION, doing business as Woodland Heights Medical Center, also known as Woodland Heights Hospital,* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

2 Lufkin, Texas, also known as HCA Hospital Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(9:96-CV-175)

_________________________________________________________________ October 22, 1999

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dr. Pickett sued the defendant hospital alleging violations of

federal and state antitrust law. He also alleged state claims

based on tortious interference with his business relationships. We

have now considered the record, the briefs, and the oral argument

presented in this case, all of which lead us directly to the

conclusion that the district court correctly ruled on all matters

before it. We are convinced that Dr. Pickett produced no evidence

that would create a material factual dispute to prevent the grant

of summary judgment o n each of the claims he asserted. We

therefore affirm the district court and we hold: (1) that the

defendant is entitled to i mmunity under the Health Care Quality

Improvement Act (the “HCQIA”) on all claims for damages based on

activities arising out of the professional peer review action. The

defendant is entitled to immunity because the evidence adduced by3

Dr. Pickett does not rebut the presumption, a presumption provided

the hospital by the HCQIA, that the professional peer review action

was based upon a reasonable belief that the defendant was acting in

the best interest of quality health care; (2) that Dr. Pickett’s

federal a nd state antitrust claims fail for lack of satisfactory

evidence of a relevant geograph ic market; and (3) that Dr.

Pickett’s tortiou s interference claims fail for lack of proof of

damages.

With respect to the defendant’s cross-app eal, the district

court properly denied its motion for attorney’s fees because it

made no showing that Dr. Pickett’s claims were unfounded.

Additionally, there is no merit to the defendant’s cross-appeal of

the district court’s denial of its motion to compel Pickett to

return a privileged document.

In sum, the district court is in all respects

A F F I R M E D.