Nurse-midwife was "licensed medical practitioner."

- Woman licensed by the state as a registered nurse and certified as a nurse-midwife by the American College of Nurse Midwives was a "licensed medical practitioner" as contemplated under O.C.G.A. § 31-7-7. Sweeney v. Athens Regional Medical Ctr., 705 F. Supp. 1556 (M.D. Ga. 1989).

State action immunity.

- Provision that staff privilege decisions may be based on "the appropriate utilization of hospital facilities" makes it foreseeable that a hospital authority would engage in anticompetitive conduct through its peer review activities, and, thus, the members of a peer review committee were shielded by state action immunity from a suit for injunctive relief by a doctor who was denied staff privileges. Crosby v. Hospital Auth., 93 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1116, 117 S. Ct. 1246, 137 L. Ed. 2d 328 (1997).

Hospital held immune from federal antitrust claims.

- Hospital which was acting in accordance with the state's policy to displace competition with regulation in the area of denying or revoking hospital staff privileges was immune from federal antitrust claims under the "state action exemption" doctrine. Sweeney v. Athens Regional Medical Ctr., 705 F. Supp. 1556 (M.D. Ga. 1989).

Injunction prohibiting hospital from limiting privileges.

- Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in denying a hospital's motion to dissolve an interlocutory and permanent injunction entered in favor of a group of doctors prohibiting the hospital from limiting the doctors from freely exercising their clinical privileges and practicing cardiology at the hospital, despite a resolution by the hospital's board of directors prohibiting the doctors from exercising the privileges, as the prohibition denied the doctors certain procedural protections which could not be ignored when implementing exclusive provider contracts. Satilla Health Servs., Inc. v. Bell, 280 Ga. App. 123, 633 S.E.2d 575 (2006).

Nondiscriminatory bylaws.

- Public hospital bylaws excluding physicians who do not have allopathic postgraduate training from the medical staff do not violate O.C.G.A. § 31-7-7 when the bylaws are rationally related to differences in allopathic and nonallopathic training and promote a legitimate state interest in providing quality health care. Silverstein v. Gwinnett Hosp. Auth., 672 F. Supp. 1444 (N.D. Ga. 1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir. 1988).

Public hospital bylaw requiring specific postgraduate specialty training or residency in order for physicians to be eligible for admission to the medical staff did not transgress the equal protection or due process rights of osteopathic physicians, nor did it offend the anti-discrimination provisions of O.C.G.A. § 31-7-7 (a). Silverstein v. Gwinnett Hosp. Auth., 861 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir. 1988).

After the defendant hospital amended the hospital's bylaws to require the hospital's medical/dental staff to have $1 million malpractice insurance, and subsequently terminated plaintiff staff physician's hospital privileges for failure to provide proof of malpractice insurance coverage, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital on the physician's Sherman Act claim against the hospital which included unlawful restraint of trade, monopoly, and boycott, and intentional interference with contract since the hospital's decision was an administrative policy adopted by the hospital in furtherance of the administration, operation, maintenance, and control of the hospital. Stein v. Tri-City Hosp. Auth., 192 Ga. App. 289, 384 S.E.2d 430, cert. denied, 192 Ga. App. 903, 384 S.E.2d 430 (1989).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 40A Am. Jur. 2d, Hospitals and Asylums, § 16.

C.J.S.

- 41 C.J.S., Hospitals, § 29 et seq.

ALR.

- Propriety of hospital's conditioning physician's staff privileges on his carrying professional liability or malpractice insurance, 7 A.L.R.4th 1238.

Exclusion of, or discrimination against, physician or surgeon by hospital, 28 A.L.R.5th 107.

Denial by hospital of staff privileges or referrals to physician or other health care practitioner as violation of Sherman Act (15 USCS § 1 et seq.), 89 A.L.R. Fed. 419.

What constitutes "state action" rendering public official's participation in private antitrust activity immune from application of federal antitrust laws, 109 A.L.R. Fed. 758.