With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". from leading a peer review meeting as the party who made the initial complaint; and (2) there were individuals present at the meeting who were not on the MEC. Hynes and Grenevicki counter that the agreement would be meaningless if the two doctors who initiated the summary suspension were not allowed to participate, and that reading the agreement to preclude their participation is contrary to the corrective action language in the. MSA as well as the policy underlying peer review. , Notably, the trauma surgeons do not argue that the failure to comply with the by-laws, in and of itself, precludes the MEC meeting from being considered a protected peer" review proceeding. See Awwad v. Largo Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 8:11-CV-1638-T-24-TBM, 2011 WL 5006503 at *2-3, *6-7 (M.D.Fla. Oct. 20, 2011) (<HOLDING>). Rather, they argue the failure to comply with

A: holding that failing to comply with hospital bylaws in connection with peer review proceeding did not vitiate peer review immunity
B: holding a similar peer review confidentiality statute did not deny the plaintiffs equal protection
C: holding that hospitals may be found liable for conspiring with members of medical staff and that evidence of pretextual sham peer review proceedings presented jury question whether hospitals conspired with peer review committees in violation of sherman act
D: holding that the state privilege should not apply when the peer review records sought directly related to the allegations challenging the peer review process
A.