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.
118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11521265)
1. Antitrust: hospitals may grant C-section privileges only to obstetricians. Romanow K J Law Med Ethics; 2001; 29(1):111-2. PubMed ID: 11521265 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Court to FP: the OR is off limits! Finger AL Med Econ; 2001 Jul; 78(13):72, 77, 83-4 passim. PubMed ID: 11478177 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Denials of staff privileges face increased antitrust scrutiny. Jacobsen RA; Wiggins RB Health Care Manage Rev; 1992; 17(4):7-15. PubMed ID: 1428862 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Denial of staff privileges and referrals: antitrust litigation. Snyder EK Appl Radiol; 1989 Sep; 18(9):33-4. PubMed ID: 10304418 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: does the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine apply? Meghrigian AG Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(2):9-16. PubMed ID: 10116795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Antitrust challenges by allied health care professionals involving hospital staff privileges. Sfikas PM J Health Hosp Law; 1991 Dec; 24(12):361-69, 374. PubMed ID: 10115233 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Austin decision good news for peer reviewers. Hudson T Hospitals; 1993 Jan; 67(2):46-8. PubMed ID: 8419281 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Austin v. McNamara: antitrust immunity for peer review under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. Herzog JP; Fisher DR Med Staff Couns; 1993; 7(2):55-61. PubMed ID: 10183844 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Restraint of trade implications for nurse practitioners: denial of hospital admitting or staff privileges. Timmons G; Ridenour N J Am Acad Nurse Pract; 1993; 5(4):175-8. PubMed ID: 8398426 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. AHA files amicus in Austin v. McNamara. Rothschild IS J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Oct; 23(10):319-20. PubMed ID: 10107476 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. High court broadens antitrust risks. Burda D Mod Healthc; 1991 Jun; 21(22):3. PubMed ID: 10110771 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: a view from the Federal Trade Commission. Horoschak MJ Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(2):17-24. PubMed ID: 10116790 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Avoiding antitrust liability for denial of access to resources: some safe harbors. Ettinger DA; Soltis KJ Med Staff Couns; 1991; 5(4):17-21. PubMed ID: 10114113 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Who'll win this high-stakes battle over privileges? Crane M Med Econ; 1991 Mar; 68(6):81, 84-5. PubMed ID: 10109580 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Perspective: antitrust litigation by aggrieved physicians. Hershey N Hosp Law Newsl; 1994 Apr; 11(6):1-4. PubMed ID: 10132992 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Is this ruling really a boost for peer review immunity? Thomas MC Med Econ; 1990 Nov; 67(23):93-4, 97, 100-1. PubMed ID: 10108713 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Medical staff credentialing: a prescription for reducing antitrust liability. Peters BM; Maneval WC Law Med Health Care; 1991; 19(1-2):120-33. PubMed ID: 1895761 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Third Circuit allows physician's federal antitrust suit to be tried. Hosp Law Newsl; 1996 Oct; 13(12):7-8. PubMed ID: 10161769 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]