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.
120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10184108)
1. Courts examine use of peer review documents. Young v. Saldanha; Ashokan v. Nevada. Hosp Law Newsl; 1994 Jun; 11(8):5-8. PubMed ID: 10184108 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Physicians denied access to credentialing file data. Amaral v. St. Cloud Hospital. Hosp Law Newsl; 2000 Dec; 18(2):1-5. PubMed ID: 11188176 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The confidentiality of peer review records: Adams vs St. Francis Hospital. Reid DL Kans Nurse; 1998 Apr; 73(4):6. PubMed ID: 10603829 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Promoting better health care: policy arguments for concurrent quality assurance and attorney-client hospital incident report privileges. Dollar CJ Health Matrix Clevel; 1993; 3(1):259-308. PubMed ID: 10138438 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Peer review puzzle. Supreme Court sidesteps appeal to keep records closed. Blesch G Mod Healthc; 2008 Jan; 38(2):17. PubMed ID: 18260535 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Medical malpractice litigation: the discoverability and use of hospitals' quality assurance committee records. Holbrook RF; Dunn LJ Med Malpract Cost Containment J; 1979 Jul; 1(2):109-31. PubMed ID: 10243995 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Incident reports protected from discovery and in camera review. Carr v. Howard. West JC J Healthc Risk Manag; 1998; 18(3):63-4. PubMed ID: 10184976 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The peer review privilege: what documents are protected from discovery in litigation. Smart CM Mo Med; 1998 May; 95(5):205-6. PubMed ID: 9604664 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Court decisions direct renewed attention to discovery issues. Klonski v. Mahlab; State ex rel. United Hosp. Ctr. v. Bedell. Hosp Law Newsl; 1997 Nov; 15(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 10184822 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Protecting hospital records from discovery. Ropiequet JL Physician Exec; 1993; 19(2):35-8. PubMed ID: 10129389 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Important hospital confidentiality interests are strengthened through Illinois court's denial of staff privileges material discovery in malpractice action. O'Brien JP Health Law Vigil; 1982 Feb; 5(4):5-6. PubMed ID: 10254162 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Legal review: a case study from California--the sharing of peer review information between hospitals and nonhospital providers. Brown LC Top Health Inf Manage; 1994 May; 14(4):68-73. PubMed ID: 10134763 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Peer review: confidentiality and privilege--Part Two. Devlin MM J Med Pract Manage; 2001; 16(5):261-3. PubMed ID: 11345885 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Evidentiary privilege for peer review documents rejected by the Fourth Circuit. Virmani v. Novant Health Inc. Hosp Law Newsl; 2002 May; 19(7):6-8. PubMed ID: 11989437 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Medical staff records exempt from discovery. Regan WA Hosp Prog; 1982 Apr; 63(4):72-3. PubMed ID: 10254841 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Medical peer review: the need to organize a protective approach. Mills DH Health Matrix Clevel; 1991; 1(1):67-76. PubMed ID: 10121880 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. VA hospital documents sought: suit threatens peer review privacy. Am Med News; 1979 Dec; 22(47):1, 14. PubMed ID: 10244813 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]