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.
287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10286662)
21. When a doctor plays judge. Isom DK J Fla Med Assoc; 1992 Apr; 79(4):249-51. PubMed ID: 1588298 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. Staff privileges--$2 million antitrust judgment reversed. Carlson DR Health Law Vigil; 1986 Oct; 9(21):1-4. PubMed ID: 10284024 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. 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. Where doctors can't confront peers who accuse them. Harsham P Med Econ; 1985 Sep; 62(18):96-8, 102-6. PubMed ID: 10272848 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. California court clarifies medical staff hearing procedures. Christensen JD Health Law Vigil; 1988 Apr; 11(9):7-8. PubMed ID: 10286816 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. Strategies for eliminating unfairness in peer review. Rozovsky FA; Rozovsky LE Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 10115449 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. "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]
34. The legal perspective. How much process is due? Johnson RL Trustee; 1979 Oct; 32(10):12-4, 16, 19-20. PubMed ID: 10289216 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. The case for arbitrating hospital-physician disputes. Ladimer I Trustee; 1981 Feb; 34(2):33-5. PubMed ID: 10250426 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Peer review immunity for bad faith activities. Patrick v. Burget fails to provide an answer. Trankina TJ J Med Assoc Ga; 1988 Sep; 77(9):724-6. PubMed ID: 3225551 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Legal immunity for peer-review programs. Pedersen AB N Engl J Med; 1989 Jul; 321(4):265. PubMed ID: 2747768 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]