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.
195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10184428)
1. Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejects hospital's immunity claim. Cooper v. Delaware Valley Medical Center. Hosp Law Newsl; 1995 Oct; 12(12):6-8. PubMed ID: 10184428 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Peer review/hospital privileges/credentialing. Springer EW Leg Med; 1994; ():57-81. PubMed ID: 7830486 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Federal District Court rejects all claims by aggrieved physician. Stitzell v. York Memorial Osteopathic Hospital. Hershey N Hosp Law Newsl; 1992 Sep; 9(11):1-7. PubMed ID: 10183725 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. HCQIA immunity: one win and one loss. Hershey N Hosp Law Newsl; 2004 Aug; 21(10):1-8. PubMed ID: 15354911 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Nevada Supreme Court wrestles with HCQIA immunity. Meyer v. Sunrise Hospital. Hosp Law Newsl; 2002 Jan; 19(3):1-5. PubMed ID: 11771121 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Special report on health care delivery systems and medical staff relationships. Peer review in the era of integrated delivery systems: it's time for some massive paradigm shifts. Brown LC Health Care Law Newsl; 1994 Jun; 9(6):16-21. PubMed ID: 10134404 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. State medical peer review: high cost but no benefit--is it time for a change? Scheutzow SO Am J Law Med; 1999; 25(1):7-60. PubMed ID: 10207570 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Legal liability and credentialing. Kitch RA Mich Hosp; 1987 May; 23(5):7-9. PubMed ID: 10281884 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
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. 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]
14. Immunity provisions: they must be read carefully. Ironside v. Simi Valley Hospital. Hosp Law Newsl; 2001 Feb; 18(4):6-8. PubMed ID: 11213496 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Legal issues involving economic credentialing. Cassidy MA Health Care Law Mon; 2002 Jul; ():20-9. PubMed ID: 12420401 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Current legal developments in medical staff credentialing disputes. Callahan MR; Vocke DN New Dir Ment Health Serv; 1989; (41):81-93. PubMed ID: 2716726 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Peer review potpourri: new developments in credentialing and privileging. Panel discussion. Kadzielski MA; Meinhardt RA; McCabe TA Spec Law Dig Health Care Law; 1995 Apr; (194):9-31. PubMed ID: 10144588 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Special report on medical staff relationships. An open question: does the Americans with Disabilities Act apply to medical staff decisions? Part I. Kadzielski MA; Parrish SW Health Care Law Newsl; 1992 Nov; 7(11):15-20. PubMed ID: 10171292 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Courts beginning to address confidentiality of physicians' credentialing records. Dawson JS Healthspan; 1994 Jun; 11(6):3-5. PubMed ID: 10135152 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]