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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

368 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10286816)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Peer review splits Calif. medical community.
    Burda D
    Mod Healthc; 1988 Oct; 18(44):98. PubMed ID: 10290221
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Liability for peer review and privilege suspension.
    Davis CD
    Tex Hosp; 1984 Jul; 40(2):42. PubMed ID: 10267575
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Implementing the Health Care Quality Improvement Act.
    Pugsley SC
    J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Feb; 23(2):42-52. PubMed ID: 10106379
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Antitrust immunity in Colorado peer review actions.
    Earnest GL
    Hosp Law Newsl; 1989 Dec; 7(2):1-5. PubMed ID: 10296371
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Idaho Court: peer review immunity statute valid.
    Hattis PA; McCullum JD
    Health Law Vigil; 1987 Nov; 10(24):1-3. PubMed ID: 10284895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Court cases testing scope of federal law's peer review immunity.
    Burda D
    Mod Healthc; 1992 Aug; 22(34):80. PubMed ID: 10119842
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986: an overview of its immunity provisions.
    Miles JJ
    Med Staff Couns; 1987; 1(2):1-9. PubMed ID: 10284641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Court upholds law's immunities in peer review cases.
    Kadzielski MA
    Health Prog; 1990; 71(6):21, 31. PubMed ID: 10105569
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. California's opt-out peer review legislation.
    Snelson EA
    Med Staff Couns; 1989; 3(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 10291137
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Medical staff privileges: time for another look.
    Sloss PF
    Trustee; 1979 Feb; 32(2):8, 11-3. PubMed ID: 10240315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Wyoming court interprets state peer review shield law.
    Hosp Law Newsl; 1989 May; 6(7):7-8. PubMed ID: 10294155
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. New peer review law provides immunity with obligations.
    Valiant C
    Physician Exec; 1987; 13(3):26-7. PubMed ID: 10312139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Peer review/hospital privileges/credentialing.
    Springer EW
    Leg Med; 1994; ():57-81. PubMed ID: 7830486
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Implementing the Health Care Quality Improvement Act.
    Pugsley SC
    Leg Med; 1990; ():217-42. PubMed ID: 2130197
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The antitrust laws and the medical peer review process.
    Hammack JM
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1993; 9():419-50. PubMed ID: 10126945
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.