Opinion ID: 1159687
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Odom alleged a prima facie case of unreasonable restraint of trade.

Text: To establish a prima facie case of unreasonable restraint of trade under AS 45.50.562, Odom must set forth facts which if proven would establish that the defendants combined or conspired with an intent to unreasonably restrain trade. Smith v. Northern Mich. Hosps., Inc., 703 F.2d 942, 949 (6th Cir.1983). Whether actions are tantamount to unreasonably restraining trade is determined by either the rule of reason test or the per se analysis. The rule of reason test should be applied to Odom's termination of staff privileges to determine whether FMH's conduct was unreasonable. See Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 843 F.2d 139, 144 n. 6 (3d Cir.1988) ([I]n a hospital staff privilege case in which the hospital defends on lack of professional ability, the rule of reason test would apply.). To establish unreasonable restraint of trade under the rule of reason test, Odom must prove three elements: (1) an agreement or conspiracy among two or more persons or distinct business entities; (2) by which the persons or entities intend to harm or restrain competition; and (3) which actually injures competition. Oltz v. St. Peter's Community Hosp., 861 F.2d 1440, 1445 (9th Cir.1988). Applying the rule of reason test, paragraphs 2, 7, and 135 of Odom's complaint allege a prima facie case of unreasonable restraint of trade.