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.
482 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10265679)
41. 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]
42. Anti-trust law and exclusive services contracts. Davis CD Tex Hosp; 1984 Jun; 40(1):47-8. PubMed ID: 10278254 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
44. How to stop a wayward doctor without getting burned. Holoweiko M Med Econ; 1989 Nov; 66(23):184-8, 191-2, 194 passim. PubMed ID: 10296180 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. Supreme Court upholds exclusive contract in Hyde antitrust decision. Reed TJ; Allen HS Hosp Med Staff; 1984 May; 13(5):2-9. PubMed ID: 10266239 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. 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]
47. Peer review in the wake of Patrick. McCormick B Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. Oregon responds to physicians' fears of peer review. Koska MT Hospitals; 1990 Jan; 64(1):70-1. PubMed ID: 2294040 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Osteopaths score their biggest court victory yet. Brown S Med Econ; 1984 Aug; 61(16):230-1, 235-8. PubMed ID: 10278257 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Fifth Circuit: hospitals did not violate the Sherman Act. Fraiche DD; Carlson WT Health Law Vigil; 1986 Jul; 9(13):2-3. PubMed ID: 10277100 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. 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]
54. 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]
55. The Patrick case: will it hinder peer review? Holthaus D Hospitals; 1988 Jun; 62(12):56. PubMed ID: 3378770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. Peer review: Patrick redux. Cohen HH Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 10104770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. 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]
58. 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]
59. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget. Kelly JP Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Are hospital peer review committees immune from federal antitrust liability? FitzGerald RM; Howarth BM Med Group Manage J; 1989; 36(1):14. PubMed ID: 10291907 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]