P.V. Patel, M.D., ("Dr.Patel") filed suit in district court against Midland Memorial Hospital and several of its doctors (collectively "the Defendants") for claims arising out of the hospital's summary suspension of all of his clinical privileges in January 1999.1 Specifically, Dr. Patel alleged that the Defendants, by participating in the suspension of his privileges: (1) denied him pre-suspension due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000); (2) engaged in racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000); (3) engaged in an illegal monopoly and attempted to monopolize in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 & 2 (2000) and TEX. BUS. & COM.CODE ANN. § 15.05 (Vernon 2001); and (4) engaged in conduct that constituted breach of contract, defamation, and interference with contractual relationships. The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of Dr. Patel's claims. Dr. Patel now appeals on the ground that genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to all of his claims. The Defendants cross-appeal arguing that under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101-11152 (2000), they are immune from all of Dr. Patel's claims, except for his civil rights claims, and are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees.

* Dr. Patel is a board-certified cardiologist who specializes in invasive and interventional cardiology.2 He joined the staff of Midland Memorial Hospital ("Midland"), a public hospital, in 1982. While at Midland, he continuously expanded his practice by obtaining new clinical privileges and increasing the volume of procedures he performed. By the mid-1990s, he performed one of the highest numbers of cardiac interventions of the hospital staff. Dr. Patel also expanded his practice outside of Midland by maintaining a practice at Odessa Medical Center and opening his own cardiac cath labs and primary care clinics, at times competing with Midland and members of its staff. For fifteen years, Dr. Patel appears to have practiced successfully without any significant problems.

Two incidents in 1997 and 1998, however, drew the attention of Midland's Medical Executive Committee (MEC) to Dr. Patel's practice. In November 1997, the MEC investigated an altercation between Dr. Patel and a nurse in front of a patient just before a procedure. Questions were raised as to whether Dr. Patel properly secured the patient's consent to continue with the procedure and whether he waited for a new nurse to arrive before beginning the procedure. The MEC ultimately suspended Dr. Patel's clinical privileges for fourteen days and ordered him to undergo a behavioral evaluation.

Six months later, the MEC received its second complaint regarding Dr. Patel's practice. The chairman of Midland's Department of Radiology reported to the MEC that Dr. Patel had "an inordinate number of catastrophic outcomes" among his recent cases of noncardiac peripheral vascular interventions. The MEC directed an ad hoc committee of eight cardiology, vascular surgery, and radiology physicians to review Dr. Patel's problematic cases. After reviewing three cases handled by Dr. Patel in the preceding eight months, the committee reported several concerns to the MEC. Specifically, the committee cited concerns regarding Dr. Patel's technical performance of procedures, his intra-procedure decisionmaking, and the accuracy of his documentation. The MEC then met to discuss the cases and the committee's report, and voted unanimously to revoke Dr. Patel's noncardiac peripheral privileges. While a post-suspension hearing was pending, the MEC sought independent review of three of Dr. Patel's cases by two outside experts. Both confirmed that the revocation was appropriate.3

At the same meeting during which it revoked Dr. Patel's peripheral privileges, the MEC charged the Cardiovascular Committee with reviewing Dr. Patel's diagnostic and interventional cardiac procedures "to ensure that a similar pattern is not emerging." In response, Stephen Brown, M.D., Chair of the Cardiology Committee, reviewed the last six fatalities in cases handled by Dr. Patel. In a report made to John Foster, Jr., M.D., Chairman of the MEC,4 Dr. Brown noted several concerns with each of the cases and concluded that Dr. Patel's management of them warranted further investigation. He recommended sending the cases for outside review to avoid any issues of bias on the part of Dr. Patel's competitors. As a result, Dr. Foster sent ten of Dr. Patel's cardiology cases to Richard A. Lange, M.D., Director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, for outside review.

While Dr. Lange conducted his outside review, the Cardiovascular Committee continued its inside review. At its bi-monthly meeting to review the morbidity/mortality cases of cardiologists at the hospital, the Committee reviewed Dr. Patel's recent morbidity/mortality cases and noted a "high concentration of severe complications."5 The Committee then forwarded a report to Dr. Foster stating that Dr. Patel was "not operating in a safe fashion" while performing certain coronary procedures and that the situation was "very dangerous."6 The report again recommended outside review by an unbiased third party, and potentially a reevaluation of Dr. Patel's privileges depending on the outcome of that report.

Dr. Foster then requested that the Medical Control Committee (MCC)7 review the Cardiovascular Committee reports regarding Dr. Patel's cardiology cases. The MCC met to discuss the cases, but decided to wait for the results of Dr. Lange's review, which were expected within the week, before acting. One week later, Dr. Lange reported to Dr. Foster that six of the ten patients whose cases he reviewed died as a "direct result of an interventional procedure" that was performed by Dr. Patel: (a) without clear indication, (b) with poor technical skills, or (c) in coronary vessels poorly suited for the procedure. Dr. Lange also found problems in the cases that suggested poor medical judgment. Two days later, the MCC reviewed Dr. Lange's report and voted to recommend the suspension of all of Dr. Patel's privileges. Upon the MCC's request, the MEC met to consider the evidence and the recommendation for suspension. After deliberation, the MEC unanimously approved the MCC's recommendation that Dr. Patel's privileges be summarily suspended.8

Dr. Patel was notified of his suspension by letter. The MEC then informed him that he had a right to a post-suspension hearing under Midland's Fair Hearing Plan. Dr. Patel immediately requested a full due process hearing and the hospital offered to provide one two weeks later. Thereafter, an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee ("Hearing Committee") held ten meetings in which Dr. Patel and the hospital submitted documentary evidence and testified regarding the events leading up to the suspension and the hospital's continued concerns about the quality of Dr. Patel's practice. After hearing testimony from eight physicians and reviewing over 125 exhibits, the Hearing Committee ultimately concluded that Dr. Patel was not a danger to his patients. Instead, the Hearing Committee faulted Dr. Patel's inadequate documentation — including his failure to note on patients' records major complications that occurred during procedures — for the questionable appearance of his cases. As a result, the Hearing Committee recommended that Dr. Patel's clinical privileges be restored, but that he be placed on probation for six months to ensure that he prepare timely and accurate medical records for each of his patients at Midland. Although the Hearing Committee recommended restoration of his privileges, it also held that there were "reasonable grounds" for the action taken by the various doctors and hospital committees reviewing Dr. Patel's cases prior to the suspension. In addition, the Hearing Committee held that the participating doctors acted "in reasonable belief that such action was in furtherance of quality health care," and "in reasonable belief that [action] was warranted by the facts known after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts." Finally, the Hearing Committee held that Dr. Brown, Dr. Miller, and Dr. Lange — the authors of three of the reports reviewing Dr. Patel's cases — "acted at all times without malice, without fraudulent or wrongful intent, and without any ulterior or improper motive."9

After his privileges were restored, Dr. Patel filed suit against Midland, four of the eleven members of the MEC who voted to suspend him, the three cardiologists reviewing his cases on behalf of the Cardiovascular Committee, the Permian Cardiology Group, and Memorial Heart and Vascular Institute.10 Specifically, Dr. Patel alleged that, by contributing to his suspension, the Defendants: (1) denied him pre-suspension due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) engaged in racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) engaged in an illegal monopoly and attempted to monopolize in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 & 2 and TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 15.05; and (4) engaged in conduct that constituted breach of contract, defamation, and interference with contractual relationships. The district court dismissed all of Dr. Patel's claims on summary judgment, but failed to reach the Defendants' claim for immunity and attorneys' fees under HCQIA. Both sides now appeal.

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Grenier v. Med. Eng'g Corp., 243 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir.2001). Summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, a court must review the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615, 624 (5th Cir. 2000).

On appeal, Dr. Patel contends that he has presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material of fact with respect to all of his claims. After reviewing the evidence in the record and the relevant law, we disagree. We address each claim separately below.

Dr. Patel first contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on his procedural due process claim.11 Specifically, he argues that, as a matter of law, due process required that he receive notice and some opportunity to be heard on the allegations against him before his clinical privileges could be suspended.12 Because Midland and the doctors deprived him of such process prior to his January 1999 suspension, he argues that he is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.13

Dr. Patel is correct that due process generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the deprivation of a protected property interest. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1985). It is well settled, however, that "[p]rocedural due process is a flexible concept whose contours are shaped by the nature of the individual's and the state interests in a particular deprivation." Caine v. Hardy, 943 F.2d 1406, 1412 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc); Gilbert, 520 U.S. at 929, 117 S. Ct. 1807. In some cases, "where a state must act quickly, or where it would be impractical to provide predeprivation process," postdeprivation process is enough to satisfy the requirements of due process. Gilbert, 520 U.S. at 930, 117 S. Ct. 1807.

We have previously considered en banc the pre-suspension process due a physician where patient safety was considered to be at risk. In Caine v. Hardy, an anesthesiologist at a public hospital was suspended after an investigation of the death of one of his patients revealed serious deficiencies in his performance. Caine, 943 F.2d at 1407-08. Believing that Dr. Caine posed a danger to his patients, the hospital suspended him without first affording him a formal hearing. We held that, under such exigent circumstances, where the safety of the public is at risk, an adequate post-suspension remedy satisfies the requirements of due process. Caine, 943 F.2d at 1412.

In the case before us, the MEC had ample reason to believe that Dr. Patel's methods posed a danger to patient safety. As an initial matter, concern for Dr. Patel's cardiology interventions developed in connection with an investigation of deficiencies in his peripheral intervention practice and a suspension of those privileges. The MEC then initiated an investigation of Dr. Patel's cardiology practice to protect against similar dangers. At the time the MEC voted to suspend Dr. Patel's privileges, it had before it a report from Dr. Brown asserting serious concerns with Dr. Patel's performance; a report from the Cardiovascular Committee finding a "high concentration of severe complications" in Dr. Patel's recent morbidity/mortality cases; an outside review from Dr. Lange concluding that six of the ten patients whose cases he reviewed died as a "direct result of an interventional procedure" performed by Dr. Patel; and the recommendation of the MCC, after independently reviewing the cases discussed in the Cardiovascular Committee's report, that Dr. Patel's privileges be suspended immediately. In light of the consistent findings before the MEC, the MEC reasonably concluded that it had no choice but to act quickly to protect patient safety.14 Because pre-suspension process was not practical under these circumstances, Dr. Patel's due process rights were not violated.

Dr. Patel contends that Caine does not resolve the question of whether he received adequate pre-suspension process in this case for two reasons. First, he argues that the summary judgment record includes substantial evidence that he did not pose an "imminent danger" to patients at the time of his suspension. Specifically, he notes that he did not have a significant malpractice record, that his overall morbidity/mortality rate for cardiology intervention was the lowest at Midland in 1997 and 1998, and that five experts defended his technical skills and past performance at his post-suspension hearing. He also notes that the Hearing Committee unanimously recommended that his privileges be reinstated. At the very least, Dr. Patel contends, this evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact for summary judgment purposes.

Although we acknowledge the evidence presented by Dr. Patel that he was not actually dangerous at the time of his suspension, we believe Dr. Patel focuses on the wrong issue. When determining the amount of process constitutionally due Dr. Patel prior to the January 1999 suspension of his privileges, the key question is not whether Dr. Patel was actually a danger, but whether the MEC had reasonable grounds for suspending him as a danger. Gilbert, 520 U.S. at 933, 117 S. Ct. 1807 (stating that the purpose of pre-suspension process, assuming it is even required, is "to assure that there are reasonable grounds to support the suspension"). We have already determined that, based on the evidence before it, the MEC had such grounds. The fact that Dr. Patel was later able to produce evidence to rebut the reports before the MEC does not call into question the reasonableness of the MEC's conclusion at the time it voted to suspend him. As a result, Dr. Patel's attempt to create a fact issue with respect to whether he was actually dangerous fails.

Second, Dr. Patel argues that even if we find that he was a danger at the time of his suspension, Caine requires more pre-suspension process than he was actually afforded. Specifically, he notes that the physician in Caine had some notice of the investigation against him and that he was able to attend two informal meetings relating to the charges prior to his suspension. Dr. Patel contends that, according to the rule set forth in Caine, he was entitled to similar treatment before his suspension.

We disagree with Dr. Patel's reading of Caine. Although Dr. Patel is correct that the doctor in Caine happened to receive some notice of the charges against him prior to his suspension, Caine did not create a pre-suspension process requirement where patient safety is at risk. On the contrary, Caine makes clear that "[n]ot even an informal hearing ... must precede a deprivation undertaken to protect the public safety." Caine, 943 F.2d at 1412.

Because, under the particular circumstances of this case, prompt action was necessary to secure patient safety, we conclude that Dr. Patel received all the pre-suspension process he was constitutionally due. As a result, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants on this issue.15

In his second point on appeal, Dr. Patel argues that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to the Defendants on his race discrimination claim. Specifically, Dr. Patel argues that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the real reason for his suspension. According to Dr. Patel, the Defendants did not suspend him because he was dangerous, but rather because he was Indian. As a result, he argues that he is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983.16

The summary-judgment test for discrimination claims under § 1981 and § 1983 is the same as the test for discrimination claims under Title VII. Pratt v. City of Houston, 247 F.3d 601, 605 n. 1 (5th Cir.2001). To survive a summary judgment motion, the plaintiff must first present a prima facie case of discrimination. See id. at 606 n. 2. If established, a prima facie case raises an inference of discrimination, and the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse decision. Id. at 606. If the defendant presents such a reason, then the inference disappears, and the plaintiff must offer evidence that the proffered reason is a pretext for racial discrimination. Id.

Assuming arguendo that Dr. Patel has presented a prima facie case of discrimination, Midland and its doctors have proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his suspension. Specifically, they contend that his privileges were suspended because of concerns for patient safety. Thus, in order to survive summary judgment, Dr. Patel must proffer sufficient evidence of pretext to create a question of fact for the jury that race, rather than patient safety, was the real reason for his suspension. Id.

Dr. Patel first attempts to show pretext by presenting evidence of what he alleges is a pattern of discrimination against him by Midland and its doctors. According to Dr. Patel, his January 1999 suspension was only the latest example of the "aggressive and unfair competition" waged against him from the time he joined Midland. In the early 1980s, he notes an incident during which the hospital declined his offer to open a cardiac cath lab. According to Dr. Patel, the hospital's former CEO stated that "he would never do it with a foreign doctor." The hospital later opened a cath lab with a white doctor. Throughout the 1990s, Dr. Patel contends that Midland repeatedly took steps to expand its operations to directly compete with, and impede the development of, his practice.17

These instances of competition do not create a question of fact regarding pretext in this case. As an initial matter, Dr. Patel fails to offer any evidence linking his 1999 suspension to these earlier events. More importantly, even if Dr. Patel could connect these events to his 1999 suspension, he still fails to create a question of fact for the jury that race motivated his suspension. See Price v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723-24 (5th Cir.2002) (requiring evidence of pretext supporting "an inference that racial discrimination was the real reason for the employment decision"); Pratt, 247 F.3d at 606 ("After a [discrimination] case reaches the pretext stage, the question for summary judgment is whether a rational fact finder could find that the employer discriminated against the plaintiffs on the basis of race." (emphasis added)). With only one exception, Dr. Patel fails to present any evidence connecting any of Midland's competitive moves to racial animus. The only instance cited by Dr. Patel that might provide evidence of racial animus — where the former CEO of Midland declined to open a cath lab with a "foreign doctor" — took place more than a decade before his suspension. The former CEO who allegedly made the statement is not a party to this case and does not appear from the record to have had any involvement in Dr. Patel's 1999 suspension. Based on this evidence, no rational factfinder could conclude that Dr. Patel was suspended on account of his race.18

Dr. Patel also attempts to show pretext vis-à-vis three racist comments made by members of Midland's staff during the late 1990s. First, in either 1996 or 1997, Dr. Patel alleges that Dr. Miller referred to him twice as a "sand nigger" and stated that he was "probably parking his camel." Dr. Miller then scheduled one of his non-emergency patients ahead of one of Dr. Patel's patients for a procedure. Dr. Miller later wrote the Cardiovascular Committee's report criticizing Dr. Patel's handling of cases and describing him as "very dangerous." Second, in 1997 or 1998, Dr. Patel alleges that another person at Midland who was probably a cardiologist made the following statement: "[Dr. Patel] is nothing but a god damn Indian quack and I want him out of here. I want his ass out of here." Finally, soon after the second comment was made, an administrator allegedly stated, after hearing a complaint about the room conditions of one of Dr. Patel's patients, that "he didn't care about that."19

These statements also fail to create a fact issue regarding the reason for Dr. Patel's suspension. Specifically, Dr. Patel has not shown that these statements are more than "stray remarks." See Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 271 F.3d 212, 222-25 (5th Cir.2001) (applying stray remarks doctrine where evidence of pretext was weak). We recently explained the stray remarks doctrine in Rubinstein v. Adm'rs of the Tulane Educ. Fund:

[I]n order for comments in the workplace to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination, they must be "1) related [to the protected class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member]; 2) proximate in time to the [complained-of adverse employment decision]; 3) made by an individual with authority over the employment decision at issue; and 4) related to the employment decision at issue."

218 F.3d 392, 400-01 (5th Cir.2000) (quoting Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651, 655 (5th Cir.1996)). The comments cited by Dr. Patel fail to meet these criteria for several reasons.

First, we note that Dr. Miller's alleged statements were made two or more years before Dr. Patel was suspended. Although they are directed at Dr. Patel's Indian descent, they do not relate to any plans to investigate his practice or suspend his privileges. See Brown, 82 F.3d at 655-56 ("Comments that are vague and remote in time are insufficient to establish discrimination." (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Moreover, Dr. Miller had no authority over the decision to suspend Dr. Patel. See Nichols v. Loral Vought Sys. Corp., 81 F.3d 38, 42 (5th Cir.1996) ("To be probative, allegedly discriminatory statements must be made by the relevant decision maker."). Dr. Miller's role in Dr. Patel's suspension was limited to the report he drafted on behalf of Dr. Brown and the Cardiovascular Committee, which recommended outside review of Dr. Patel's cases. Dr. Miller was not a member of the MEC — the body that voted to suspend Dr. Patel — nor was he a member of the MCC — the body that recommended suspension. Finally, the statements made by the unidentified speaker and the administrator cannot support an inference of discrimination. They do not appear to be related to Dr. Patel's suspension, nor can they be linked to an individual with authority over Dr. Patel's suspension.20

Because Dr. Patel has failed to present sufficient evidence of pretext from which a rational factfinder could infer racial discrimination, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants on this issue.21

Dr. Patel next argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his federal and state antitrust claims. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 & 2; TEX. BUS. & COM.CODE ANN. § 15.05. Specifically, he argues that his suspension was the product of a conspiracy to monopolize the Midland market for the "performance of interventional and invasive cardiology services."22 According to Dr. Patel, the Defendants suspended him so that they could succeed to his market share and block the further expansion of his practice — including the opening of a new hospital to compete with Midland. Dr. Patel contends that the Defendants' actions caused injuries redressable by the antitrust laws because they essentially removed him from the market for eleven months, led to higher costs and fewer options for consumers, and delayed his plans to open a competing hospital.

To support his antitrust claim, Dr. Patel cites the same pattern of competition that he relied on in connection with his discrimination claim. See infra note 17 and accompanying text. According to Dr. Patel, after the Defendants' previous attempts to block the expansion of his practice failed, they resorted to directly attacking his clinical privileges. In addition to past examples of aggressive competition, Dr. Patel once again argues that the fact that he was not a danger further illustrates that his suspension was a "sham" undertaken to destroy his reputation and practice. Finally, Dr. Patel notes that at least some of his reviewers — specifically, Drs. Brown and Miller, both members of the Permian Cardiology Group — were cardiologists at Midland who directly competed with his cardiology practice.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants on Dr. Patel's antitrust claims for three reasons. First, Dr. Patel has failed to present sufficient evidence from which a rational factfinder could conclude that he was suspended for anticompetitive reasons. To begin, the mere fact that Dr. Patel and Midland competed in the past does not itself support a finding that his suspension was a sham. This is particularly true where, as here, the record supports the hospital's reasonable belief that Dr. Patel was a danger to patients at the time of his suspension.23 Moreover, Dr. Patel's complaint that his direct competitors participated in his investigation is of little consequence here. It is inevitable in any peer review process that a physician's competitors will at some point be involved in the process. As Dr. Patel himself implicitly concedes, only specialists from the same field can fairly assess a physician's cases.24 Finally, we note that the Defendants here took several steps to ensure that the quality of its peer review process was not tainted by competitive bias. Drs. Miller and Brown, though critical of Dr. Patel's cases, both recommended outside review before taking action against Dr. Patel. The hospital followed these recommendations and sought an outside review by Dr. Lange. In addition, Midland's procedures provided for review by doctors of various disciplines within the hospital. Furthermore, Dr. Patel's competitors did not control the ultimate decision to suspend his privileges.25

Second, Dr. Patel's antitrust claims fail as a matter of law because he has not alleged a cognizable antitrust injury. See Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489, 97 S. Ct. 690, 50 L. Ed. 2d 701 (1977) ("Plaintiffs must prove antitrust injury, which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful."). Dr. Patel's suspension did not eliminate him as a competitor. He still continued to treat many of his patients at another facility during the time of his suspension.26 Moreover, his suspension did not permanently block his plans to open a new hospital, but at best delayed them.

Third, the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984 (LGAA), and its Texas counterpart, bar Dr. Patel from recovering antitrust damages from Midland and its doctors acting in their official capacities. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 34-36 (2000); TEX. BUS. & COM.CODE ANN. § 15.05(g) (Vernon Supp. 2001). The LGAA provides, in relevant part:

No damages, interest on damages, costs or attorney's fees may be recovered [for violations of antitrust laws] in any claim against a person based on any official action directed by a local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity.

15 U.S.C. § 36(a). Because it is undisputed that Midland is a political subdivision of the State of Texas, and that the doctors in this suit were acting as agents of the hospital when investigating Dr. Patel's cases, they are immune from antitrust liability.27

Lastly, Dr. Patel argues that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to the Defendants on his three state law claims — breach of contract, tortious interference with contract relations, and defamation. We disagree.

First, Dr. Patel argues that Midland's bylaws constituted a contract between Midland and its doctors that was breached when he was suspended without first being afforded process. Specifically, Dr. Patel argues that, because he was not actually a danger, Midland's bylaws required that he be afforded notice and a hearing prior to the deprivation of his privileges. Even assuming the existence of a contract in this case, summary judgment was still proper on this claim because Midland's bylaws were not violated. Although Dr. Patel is correct that Midland's bylaws generally provide for notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the deprivation of privileges, that is not the case where, as here, patient safety is deemed to be at risk. Midland's bylaws specifically authorize summary suspension "whenever a practitioner's conduct requires that immediate action be taken to prevent immediate danger to ... patients."

Second, Dr. Patel claims in vague terms that the Defendants defamed him by disseminating "false and defamatory per se publications to third parties." Specifically, he argues that these publications falsely stated that the summary suspension was justified to protect patient safety. Because we have already concluded that the MEC had reasonable grounds for concluding that Dr. Patel was a danger and thus that his summary suspension was justified under the circumstances, summary judgment was proper on this claim.28 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 73.005 (Vernon 2001) ("The truth of the statement in the publication on which an action for libel is based is a defense to the action.").

Third, Dr. Patel claims that the Defendants, by illegally suspending him, interfered with his business and contractual relations with the hospital, as well as with his business relationships with other physicians, patients, and insurance carriers. This claim also fails. To begin, we have already determined that Dr. Patel's suspension was not illegal. Moreover, we note that it is undisputed that Midland, through its agents, had a duty to engage in peer review of its physicians. Thus, as the district court correctly concluded, any contractual interference caused by Midland's exercise of this right with respect to Dr. Patel was justified. See Friendswood Dev. Co. v. McDade & Co., 926 S.W.2d 280, 282 (Tex.1996) ("A party is justified in interfering with another's contract if it exercises (1) its own legal rights or (2) a good faith claim to a colorable legal right, even though that claim ultimately proves to be mistaken.").

Finally, we note the Defendants' contention that they are immune to all of Dr. Patel's claims, except for his civil rights claims, under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the Texas Peer Review statutes. See HCQIA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101-11152 (providing immunity from damages to any person participating in a professional review action when the proceeding meets certain statutory requirements); Texas Medical Practice Act, TEX. OCC.CODE ANN. § 160.010(1) (Vernon 2001); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 161.033 (Vernon 2001) (providing immunity to members and agents of medical peer review committees absent a showing of malice). In addition, the Defendants argue that both the federal and the state statutes entitle them to attorneys' fees.29

Because we agree with the district court's resolution of Dr. Patel's claims on the merits, we need not reach the issue of whether the HCQIA or the Texas Peer Review statutes immunize the Defendants in this case. As for the question of whether attorneys' fees should be awarded to Defendants, we remand this case to the district court for consideration of this issue.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendants on all of Dr. Patel's claims. We REMAND this case to the district court for a determination of their entitlement to attorneys' fees and defense costs under the HCQIA, 42 U.S.C. § 11113, and the Texas Peer Review statutes, TEX. OCC.CODE ANN. § 160.008(c).