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.
22. Patrick v. Burget; will the state action doctrine protect bad faith peer review? Healthspan; 1988 Feb; 5(2):20-2. PubMed ID: 10288650 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. High court's override on Patrick renews concerns about peer review risk. Halper HR; Kazon PM Bus Health; 1988 Jul; 5(9):40-1. PubMed ID: 10288490 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Medical staff antitrust decisions examine defenses available to defendants. Hosp Law Newsl; 1990 Jun; 7(8):1-6. PubMed ID: 10104849 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Oregon case raises questions about peer review. Davis CD Healthtexas; 1989 Jan; 44(7):7. PubMed ID: 10313055 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. A tale of four cases: Patrick, Bolt, Mitchell, and Oltz. Chenen AR Med Staff Couns; 1989; 3(2):51-4. PubMed ID: 10292421 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Hospital medical staff privileges and antitrust: an overview. Weissburg C; Waxman JM Conn Med; 1982 Jul; 46(7):393-6. PubMed ID: 7116840 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. The physician and hospital privileges. Hirsch HL Leg Med Q; 1981-1983; 5-7():179-91. PubMed ID: 10287959 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Peer review: Patrick redux. Cohen HH Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 10104770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Antitrust law and medical staff decisions: can a hospital conspire with its medical staff? Reed ME; Polk DJ Bull Am Coll Surg; 1984 Apr; 69(4):22-4. PubMed ID: 10265679 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Federal court limits federal antitrust jurisdiction over medical staff decisions. Christensen JD Health Law Vigil; 1984 Jan; 7(1):12-4. PubMed ID: 10264312 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Courts and Congress shield peer review process from antitrust liability. Halper HR Bus Health; 1987 Jan; 4(3):59. PubMed ID: 10280004 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Liability for peer review and privilege suspension. Davis CD Tex Hosp; 1984 Jul; 40(2):42. PubMed ID: 10267575 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. 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] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]