English to Japanese Law/Patents Law (general)

The cases cited by Crow in support of his argument that exhaustion is not required for common law claims are inapposite. In Ryals, we held that exhaustion was not necessary when the physician claimed there was an ***anticompetitive violation*** by the hospital arising separately from the peer review process.  In that case, the hospital denied the physician privileges based on the hospital's exclusive contract with a third party to read MRIs. Id. at 656. Therefore, the hospital's alleged anticompetitive conduct did not arise out of the peer review process. Here, on the other hand, Crow's complaints stem solely from the process, or in his view, lack of process, that he has been afforded by the Hospital during this protracted peer review dispute, and not from a separate matter.