772 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10287959)
1. The physician and hospital privileges.
Hirsch HL
Leg Med Q; 1981-1983; 5-7():179-91. PubMed ID: 10287959
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Peer review, privileges: MDs fear legal tangles.
Koska MT
Trustee; 1990 Feb; 43(2):19. PubMed ID: 10104264
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Antitrust and hospital peer review.
Blumstein JF; Sloan FA
Law Contemp Probl; 1988; 51(2):7-92. PubMed ID: 10295966
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Peer review in the wake of Patrick.
McCormick B
Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Antitrust law and the medical staff.
Holthaus D
Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):23. PubMed ID: 10288093
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Peer review, privileges: MDs fear legal tangles.
Koska MT
Hospitals; 1989 Dec; 63(23):28-9, 31, 33. PubMed ID: 2583696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Peer review: Patrick redux.
Cohen HH
Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 10104770
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The Patrick case: will it hinder peer review?
Holthaus D
Hospitals; 1988 Jun; 62(12):56. PubMed ID: 3378770
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget.
Kelly JP
Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Medical peer review under legal knife.
Kosterlitz J
Natl J (Wash); 1988 Mar; 20(13):820. PubMed ID: 10286588
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Medical staff privileges: is antitrust a real issue for providers?
Enders RJ
Healthc Financ Manage; 1986 Mar; 40(3):64-70. PubMed ID: 10275454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review after Patrick.
Bierig J
J Health Hosp Law; 1988 Jun; 21(6):135-9. PubMed ID: 10287912
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. "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]
[Next] [New Search]
