188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10025314)
21. Natural justice.
Taylor K
Lamp; 1998 Jul; 55(6):25-6. PubMed ID: 10025351
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Was failure to pass licensure exam admissible?
Nurs Law Regan Rep; 2006 Nov; 47(6):4. PubMed ID: 17153335
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Liability arising out of professional disciplinary law.
Taylor K
Lamp; 1998 Jan; 55(1):20-1. PubMed ID: 9543997
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. The co-regulation of medical discipline: challenging medical peer review.
Thomas D
J Law Med; 2004 Feb; 11(3):382-9. PubMed ID: 15018214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Patients Disciplinary Board, expert knowledge or legal rights].
Møller N; Rungby J
Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Jun; 165(24):2501-2; author reply 2502. PubMed ID: 12872476
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Clinical practice guidelines and medical malpractice.
Tzeel A
Physician Exec; 2002; 28(2):36-9. PubMed ID: 11957408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Mammography malpractice litigation and the impact of MQSA (Mammography Quality Standards Act).
Whiteman T
Adm Radiol; 1995 Mar; 14(3):29-31. PubMed ID: 10142158
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Delegation, downsizing and liability.
Fiesta J
Nurs Manage; 1997 Dec; 28(12):14. PubMed ID: 9423444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Rationale for a medical society sponsored expert witness program.
Scarano VR
Tex Med; 1996 Dec; 92(12):80-5. PubMed ID: 8979765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. National Practitioner Data Bank monitors health care quality.
Allen A
J Post Anesth Nurs; 1990 Jun; 5(3):203-4. PubMed ID: 2355369
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Expert medical testimony: responsibilities of medical societies.
McAbee GN
Neurology; 2005 Jul; 65(2):337; author reply 337. PubMed ID: 16043821
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. The nurse practitioner in malpractice actions: standard of care and theory of liability.
Baker SE
Health Matrix Clevel; 1992; 2(2):325-55. PubMed ID: 10124882
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Special report: new paradigms in credentialing. Peer review process called into question.
Hosp Peer Rev; 1999 Aug; 24(8):123-6. PubMed ID: 10621289
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. FL: does peer review apply to nurses notes?: defendant dr. attempts to invoke peer privilege.
Regan Rep Nurs Law; 1999 Feb; 39(9):3. PubMed ID: 10223027
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Forewarned is forearmed. Potential areas of legal liability for nurses.
Taylor K
Lamp; 1997 Nov; 54(10):30-1. PubMed ID: 9444219
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Physician defamation. Candor rarely results in liability.
Lingle EA; Frazier DS
J Leg Med; 1997 Dec; 18(4):521-38. PubMed ID: 9433039
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Federal court's decisions will clarify the Health Care Quality Improvement Act.
Brown LC; Penner IE
Health Syst Rev; 1994; 27(4):35-7. PubMed ID: 10135422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Knock down local standards of care.
Horty JF
Mod Healthc; 1979 Nov; 9(11):80, 86. PubMed ID: 492129
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. A right to be heard.
Sibbald B
Can Nurse; 1997 Nov; 93(10):22-30. PubMed ID: 9444143
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Plaintiffs' expert's opinion rejected as 'conclusory'.
Nurs Law Regan Rep; 2008 Nov; 49(6):2. PubMed ID: 19127935
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
