A radiologist sued a hospital group and a radiology group, alleging an exclusive contract violated antitrust laws after his privileges were terminated. The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing that the radiologist was "judicially prevented" from claiming antitrust violations because the radiologist asserted facts in prior state actions that contradicted this allegation. The federal district court denied the motion, holding that mere prior inconsistent statements is not enough; the record failed to show the radiologist took a contradictory "position" upon which the prior court accepted, that was based on the alleged prior inconsistent statements.