In the case of Patrick v. Burget et al., Dr. Charles Patrick, a surgeon in Oregon, sued his former colleagues and hospital for antitrust violations after they revoked his staff privileges at the local hospital following peer reviews that he claimed were biased against him. He argued that this action effectively forced him out of practice in violation of federal antitrust laws as it limited competition within the medical profession locally. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Dr. Patrick, stating that while hospitals and doctors are generally exempt from federal antitrust scrutiny when conducting peer review activities under state law, such immunity does not extend to those actions if they are found to be taken in bad faith or with malice intent towards another doctor's ability to compete.

In the dissenting opinion for Patrick v. Burget, it was argued that the majority's decision to not apply antitrust immunity to peer review actions by private hospital staffs could potentially undermine effective medical peer review processes. The dissent emphasized that these reviews are essential in maintaining high standards of care and ensuring patient safety. They expressed concern that subjecting such decisions to antitrust scrutiny would deter physicians from participating in peer reviews due to fear of litigation, which could ultimately compromise patient care quality. Furthermore, they contended that Congress had implicitly approved this type of immunity through its support for self-regulation within the medical profession and its failure to explicitly exclude such activities from antitrust laws.