Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Nurse Midwifery Associates v. Hibbett

927 F.2d 904

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1991-03-12
Topic: general

ORDER Plaintiffs, in their petition for rehearing, ask this court to issue a supplemental opinion addressing the disposition on appeal of their claim of conspiracy between State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company and B.K. Hibbett, M.D. In order that there be no confusion in this regard, the final paragraph of our opinion, which was filed on November 6, 1990, 918 F.2d 605, is modified to read as follows: “For the reasons stated, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to defendants SVMIC and Dr. Hibbett to the extent that it disposed of plaintiffs’ claim that Dr. Hib-bett and other principals at SVMIC conspired in violation of the Act, and remand that claim pursuant to Section III(B) of this opinion.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Nurse Midwifery Associates v. Hibbett. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 2 opinions

NURSE MIDWIFERY ASSOCIATES v. HIBBETT,927 F.2d 904(6th Cir. 1991)

NURSE MIDWIFERY ASSOCIATES; SUSAN SIZEMORE; VICTORIA HENDERSON; DARRELL

MARTIN, M.D.; RICHARD AND MARGARET CARPENTER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

(88-5842), PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, (88-5491), v. B.K. HIBBETT, M.D.; E. CONRAD

SHACKLEFORD, M.D.; GEORGE ANDREWS, M.D.; STEPHEN MELKIN, M.D.; HARRY BAER,

M.D.; STATE VOLUNTEER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; AND VANDERBILT

UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, (88-5842), SOUTHERN HILLS

HOSPITAL; AND HENDERSONVILLE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,

(88-5491).

Nos. 88-5842, 89-5491.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 12, 1991.

Before MARTIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

[1] ORDER

[2] Plaintiffs, in their petition for rehearing, ask this court to issue a supplemental opinion addressing the disposition on appeal of their claim of conspiracy between State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company and B.K. Hibbett, M.D.

[3] In order that there be no confusion in this regard, the final paragraph of our opinion, which was filed on November 6, 1990,918 F.2d 605, is modified to read as follows:

[4] "For the reasons stated, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to defendants SVMIC and Dr. Hibbett to the extent that it disposed of plaintiffs' claim that Dr. Hibbett and other principals at SVMIC conspired in violation of the Act, and remand that claim pursuant to Section III(B) of this opinion. We also reverse the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Drs. Melkin, Baer, and Andrews. In all other respects, the decisionPage 905of the district court is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

[5] To the extent set out above, the petition for rehearing is granted.