These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
23. Peer review, hearing requirements, and antitrust: maximizing Federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act compliance and immunity. Snelson EA J Med Assoc Ga; 1992 Sep; 81(9):495-7. PubMed ID: 1402428 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Facing the limits on uses of medical and peer review information: are high technology and confidentiality on a collision course? Brown LC; Stanton WC; Paye W Whittier Law Rev; 1997; 19(1):97-118. PubMed ID: 12071205 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. To review or not to review: antitrust liabilities and peer review protections. Acevedo LJ J Health Hosp Law; 1994 Nov; 27(11):321-36, 351-2. PubMed ID: 10138598 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Court orders removal of report from National Practitioner Data Bank. Simpkins v. Shalala. Hosp Law Newsl; 1999 Mar; 16(5):6-8. PubMed ID: 10346624 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Hospital medical staff privilege issues: "brother's keeper" revisited. Copeland WM; Brown PE Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1991 Nov; (153):7-19. PubMed ID: 10114837 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Participation in the National Practitioner Data Bank--Department of Veterans Affairs. Final rule. Fed Regist; 1991 Oct; 56(208):55461-4. PubMed ID: 10115361 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Legal aspects of the medical staff peer review process. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986--boon or bane? Couch JB Qual Assur Util Rev; 1988 Feb; 3(1):24-6. PubMed ID: 2980922 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. A tale of two doctors. Hershey N Hosp Law Newsl; 1995 Jan; 12(3):3-8. PubMed ID: 10139499 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Duties and potential liability of nonhospital entities in credentialing physicians. Griffith RL Med Staff Couns; 1991; 5(1):7-17. PubMed ID: 10160755 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Hospital peer review is a kangaroo court. Townend DW Med Econ; 2000 Feb; 77(3):133-6, 141. PubMed ID: 10848200 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. The peer review privilege: a dying cause? McKinney P J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Jul; 25(7):201-11, 215. PubMed ID: 10123592 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Quality assurance implications of federal peer review laws. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner Data Bank. Snelson E Qual Assur Util Rev; 1992; 7(1):2-11. PubMed ID: 1603858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. When does a review constitute an investigation and what is a surrender? Hosp Law Newsl; 2000 Sep; 17(11):1-3. PubMed ID: 11186478 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Peer review immunity? Think again: recent developments in federal and state law. Spevak C Physician Exec; 2007; 33(3):76-8. PubMed ID: 17539569 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Time to reconsider "without cause" provisions in employment contracts. Isackson C; Meinhardt R J Med Pract Manage; 1999; 15(2):105-8. PubMed ID: 15318440 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]