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.
3. Antitrust law and the medical staff. Holthaus D Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):23. PubMed ID: 10288093 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Antitrust. Is quality review in jeopardy? Pollner F Med World News; 1988 Jun; 29(12):34-6, 38, 43-7. PubMed ID: 10287973 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Medical staff peer review and federal antitrust scrutiny. LaCava FW Bull Am Coll Surg; 1985 Aug; 70(8):40-1. PubMed ID: 10272117 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review in the wake of Patrick. McCormick B Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The Patrick case: will it hinder peer review? Holthaus D Hospitals; 1988 Jun; 62(12):56. PubMed ID: 3378770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget. Kelly JP Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Supreme Court decides Patrick; peer review alive and well despite ruling. Christensen JD Health Law Vigil; 1988 Jun; 11(13):1-5. PubMed ID: 10287418 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. "State action" doctrine as a defense in antitrust challenges. Berg RN J Med Assoc Ga; 1985 Feb; 74(2):93-5. PubMed ID: 3838333 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Eleventh Circuit allows state action defense in medical staff antitrust case. Miller RD Hosp Law Newsl; 1989 Jan; 6(3):1-5. PubMed ID: 10292016 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Recent case offers hospitals new protection from antitrust liability. Davis CD Tex Hosp; 1985 Jul; 41(2):48-9. PubMed ID: 10278343 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]