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.
181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10183844)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Austin v. McNamara: immunity from suit under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. Chenen AR Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(4):49-51. PubMed ID: 10107512 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. AHA files amicus in Austin v. McNamara. Rothschild IS J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Oct; 23(10):319-20. PubMed ID: 10107476 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Putting HCQIA (Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986) to the test. QRC Advis; 1992 Jul; 8(9):6-7. PubMed ID: 10183677 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Medical staff credentialing: a prescription for reducing antitrust liability. Peters BM; Maneval WC Law Med Health Care; 1991; 19(1-2):120-33. PubMed ID: 1895761 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Austin decision good news for peer reviewers. Hudson T Hospitals; 1993 Jan; 67(2):46-8. PubMed ID: 8419281 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Is this ruling really a boost for peer review immunity? Thomas MC Med Econ; 1990 Nov; 67(23):93-4, 97, 100-1. PubMed ID: 10108713 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]