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.
22. ERISA: no preemption of state's HMO law requiring independent physician review. Sapeika T J Law Med Ethics; 2000; 28(4):407-9. PubMed ID: 11317432 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Workers of the world, panic! Parloff R Fortune; 2004 Jul; 150(1):36, 38. PubMed ID: 15270460 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Supreme Court rules HMO suits are preempted. Prieto-Gonzalez M J Law Med Ethics; 2004; 32(4):774-6. PubMed ID: 15807366 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila: Implications for public health policy. Rosenbaum S; Teitelbaum J Public Health Rep; 2004; 119(5):510-2. PubMed ID: 15313115 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. ERISA: U.S. Supreme Court holds treatment decisions made by HMO physician-employees do not breach fiduciary duty. Netter W J Law Med Ethics; 2000; 28(3):309-11. PubMed ID: 11210385 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Supreme Court decides important HMO case involving physician incentives. Devlin MM J Med Pract Manage; 2000; 16(2):95-8. PubMed ID: 14608781 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Pegram v. Herdrich: HMOs aren't perfect, but .. Wahl JR Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 2001; 27(2):297-305. PubMed ID: 12778921 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Supreme Court limits HMO lawsuits. Fine A Manag Care Q; 2004; 12(3):13-4. PubMed ID: 15702562 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Pegram v. Herdrich: The Supreme Court confronts managed care. Jost TS Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics; 2001; 1():187-93. PubMed ID: 12669328 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. U.S. Supreme Court wades into ERISA one more time. Roeder KH; Rees JS GHA Today; 2004 Aug; 48(7):3, 9. PubMed ID: 15500273 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Supreme Court refuses to "precipitate the upheaval" in Pegram v. Herdrich. Torrance AB Health Care Law Mon; 2000 Jul; ():16-8. PubMed ID: 11066640 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. The United State Supreme Court and health law: the year in review. The Supreme Court federalizes managed care liability. Ruger TW J Law Med Ethics; 2004; 32(3):528-31. PubMed ID: 15490600 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. The Supreme Court lets HMOs off the hook. Rice B Med Econ; 2004 Jul; 81(14):14, 16. PubMed ID: 15357171 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. What recourse? Liability for managed-care decisions and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Mariner WK N Engl J Med; 2000 Aug; 343(8):592-6. PubMed ID: 10954770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. ERISA preemption of medical negligence claims against HMO's: perceived conflict between Pennsylvania Supreme Court and 3rd Circuit paves way for showdown in U.S. Supreme Court. Ryan SA J Healthc Risk Manag; 2001; 21(3):5-10. PubMed ID: 11507946 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Supreme Court strikes down state regulation of health plan coverage decisions. Meadors GM J Med Pract Manage; 2004; 20(3):154-5. PubMed ID: 15672906 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. U.S. Supreme Court rules on physicians' role under ERISA group health plans. Meadors GM J Med Pract Manage; 2000; 16(3):146-7. PubMed ID: 11280204 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. The Supreme Court's pre-emptive strike against patients' rights to sue their HMOs. Kopels S; Manselle T Soc Work Health Care; 2006; 43(1):1-15. PubMed ID: 16723332 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]