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.
144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10183560)
1. Federal antitrust jurisdiction in peer review cases: the Pinhas decision. Busey RC Hosp Law Newsl; 1991 Nov; 9(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 10183560 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Federal laws govern the conduct of peer review. Devlin MM Am J Med Qual; 1992; 7(3):88-90. PubMed ID: 1493383 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A case of wrongful use of quality management. Summit Health, Ltd., v. Pinhas. Trentalance AE Physician Exec; 1994 Jun; 20(6):28-9. PubMed ID: 10184123 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Supreme Court expands view of interstate commerce in peer review proceeding. Neugebauer JE Physician Exec; 1991; 17(4):30-1. PubMed ID: 10183511 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: a view from the Federal Trade Commission. Horoschak MJ Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(2):17-24. PubMed ID: 10116790 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The antitrust laws and the medical peer review process. Hammack JM J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1993; 9():419-50. PubMed ID: 10126945 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Austin v. McNamara: antitrust immunity for peer review under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. Herzog JP; Fisher DR Med Staff Couns; 1993; 7(2):55-61. PubMed ID: 10183844 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Court cases testing scope of federal law's peer review immunity. Burda D Mod Healthc; 1992 Aug; 22(34):80. PubMed ID: 10119842 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Legal aspects of peer review. Patrick v Burget in the U.S. Supreme Court: its impact on peer review. Couch JB Qual Assur Util Rev; 1988 May; 3(2):59-60. PubMed ID: 2980931 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: does the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine apply? Meghrigian AG Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(2):9-16. PubMed ID: 10116795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Court grants HCQIA immunity in antitrust suit by physician. Smith v. Ricks. Hershey N Hosp Law Newsl; 1993 Jun; 10(8):3-5. PubMed ID: 10183876 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Is HCQIA (Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986) protecting peer review from antitrust claims? Cross LL Healthspan; 1993 Jun; 10(6):11-3. PubMed ID: 10127301 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Denials of staff privileges face increased antitrust scrutiny. Jacobsen RA; Wiggins RB Health Care Manage Rev; 1992; 17(4):7-15. PubMed ID: 1428862 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review and you. Dorian AL Qual Assur Util Rev; 1988 Aug; 3(3):84-7. PubMed ID: 2980936 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Antitrust issues for the nurse anesthetist: areas of concern. Recht PR; Garg RK Nurse Anesth; 1992 Jun; 3(2):57-66. PubMed ID: 1606205 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Hospital and doctors granted antitrust immunity in important peer review lawsuit. Austin v. McNamara. Kadzielski MA Health Care Law Newsl; 1993 Feb; 8(2):8-12. PubMed ID: 10183829 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Antitrust immunity granted in a far-reaching peer review case. Austin v. McNamara. Kadzielski MA Health Prog; 1993; 74(1):19, 29. PubMed ID: 10183820 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]