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. Antitrust issues in the health care field: an introduction. Bressler HJ J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Apr; 23(4):97-100, 114. PubMed ID: 10104711 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Denying hospital privileges to non-physicians: does quality of care justify a potential restraint of trade? Reindl G Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1988 May; 9(11):7-39. PubMed ID: 10286963 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Exclusive contract case sets important antitrust precedent, considerations. Halper HR Bus Health; 1984 Sep; 1(9):52-3. PubMed ID: 10267657 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Exclusive contracts and hospital privileges--the physician's perspective. Chenen AR Med Staff Couns; 1988; 2(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 10285826 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. High court relaxes exclusive-contract antitrust rules in Hyde. Reed TJ; Allen HS Hospitals; 1984 Jun; 58(11):74-9. PubMed ID: 6724551 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Patient care not enough as defense for provider conduct. Hammaker MK Provider; 1987 Dec; 13(12):30-1, 40. PubMed ID: 10285093 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Doctors and hospitals: an antitrust perspective on traditional relationships. Havighurst CC Duke Law J; 1984 Dec; (6):1071-162. PubMed ID: 10270605 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Court: activity must affect Interstate Commerce to invoke Sherman Act. Carlson DR Health Law Vigil; 1986 Jun; 9(12):7-9. PubMed ID: 10276712 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Hospital law: the spiraling cost of litigation. Hollowell EE South Hosp; 1984; 52(5):66-7. PubMed ID: 10268456 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Peer review in the wake of Patrick. McCormick B Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Peer review after Patrick case is alive and well. Holthaus D Hospitals; 1988 Oct; 62(20):34. PubMed ID: 3169708 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Perspectives. The Patrick case: implications for peer review. Mcgraw Hills Med Health; 1988 May; 42(22):suppl 4 p.. PubMed ID: 10287491 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Peer review: Patrick redux. Cohen HH Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 10104770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. The Patrick case: will it hinder peer review? Holthaus D Hospitals; 1988 Jun; 62(12):56. PubMed ID: 3378770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Hospital attempts to stifle admissions to competing facilities: Potters decision. Miles JJ Health Law Vigil; 1987 Mar; 10(7):3-6. PubMed ID: 10281336 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget. Kelly JP Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]