In K&S Associates Inc. v. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Middle District of Tennessee Judge Kevin H. Sharp refused to dismiss radiation therapy calibration laboratory’s suit accusing the American Association of Physicists in Medicine of conspiring to reduce competition in the calibration industry and drive the lab out of business. K&S sued AAPM, alleging that AAPM refused to re-accredit K&S in order to drive it out of business, thereby helping its competitors stay in business. AAPM filed a motion for summary judgment. The court denied AAPM’s motion, holding that although K&S hadn’t proved that use of the Sherman Act’s “per se” or “quick look” standards were appropriate for its direct claims against AAPM, AAPM’s decision not to re-accredit K&S could still be subject to a “rule-of-reason” test under the act. The court further held that K&S had offered sufficient evidence that the AAPM’s effective monopoly over legally-required accreditation in a “highly concentrated” market of only three dosimetry calibration labs meant that a decision to deny K&S accreditation could potentially affect the market.