Opinion ID: 511771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedural History; Problems and Contentions

Text: 94 Nanavati's initial antitrust claim, which was included in his counterclaim to Sorensen's defamation action, was asserted against Sorensen alone. The counterclaim asserted that, in violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, Sorensen: (1) caused the revocation of Nanavati's hospital staff privileges; and (2) organized a doctors' boycott of patient referrals at the Hospital. The claim was premised on Sorensen's putative desire to exclude Nanavati because of his competitive threat to Sorensen's lucrative cardiological practice. As we have noted above, at the close of Nanavati's case he moved to amend the complaint and pretrial order to add the Hospital and the Executive Committee as defendants. 19 95 The district court submitted the antitrust claim to the jury on rule of reason and per se grounds. The court instructed the jury that if it found that a group boycott existed and was motivated in whole or in part by the legitimate concerns for quality of patient care, such as lack of professional competence, unprofessional behavior and the like the conduct was to be judged (under the rule of reason) by examining the defendants' actions to determine whether the boycott was an unreasonable restraint of trade. J.A. at 4403. The court also instructed the jury that if it found a group boycott without such motivation it should find that the conduct was per se unreasonable. 96 The jury returned a special verdict as follows: 97 B1. Was there a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce? Yes X 98 No 99