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.
196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14660324)
41. Bio-ethics and physician liability: the liability effects of developing pain management standards. Stark SE St Thomas Law Rev; 2002; 14(3):601-40. PubMed ID: 12741384 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. California's Compassionate Use Act and the federal government's medical marijuana policy: can California physicians recommend marijuana to their patients without subjecting themselves to sanctions? Rojas LM McGeorge Law Rev; 1999; 30(4):1373-425. PubMed ID: 15709269 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. The impact of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act on peer review. Strama B Healthspan; 1990 Oct; 7(9):12-7. PubMed ID: 10107396 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
44. When a doctor plays judge. Isom DK Del Med J; 1992 Apr; 64(4):275-8. PubMed ID: 1618350 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. The impact of Patrick v. Burget on peer review. Gainer PS; Miles JJ Med Staff Couns; 1988; 2(4):13-21. PubMed ID: 10290181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Quality assurance--what lies ahead? A Canadian legal respective. Batty GR Health Law Can; 1985; 5(4):108-12. PubMed ID: 10311238 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. The poor state of health care quality in the U.S.: is malpractice liability part of the problem or part of the solution? Hyman DA; Silver C Cornell Law Rev; 2005 May; 90(4):893-993. PubMed ID: 15954245 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act: two states opt out. Kadzielski MA Rev Fed Am Health Syst; 1989; 22(5):41-2. PubMed ID: 10294797 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. 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]
51. Solving the physician's dilemma: an HIV partner-notification plan. Bernstein B Stanford Law Pol Rev; 1995; 6(2):127-36. PubMed ID: 12645604 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Patrick v. Burget; will the state action doctrine protect bad faith peer review? Healthspan; 1988 Feb; 5(2):20-2. PubMed ID: 10288650 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Uncertainty and unpredictability in application of peer review privileges statutes. Hicks JT J Health Hosp Law; 1991 May; 24(5):137-43, 167. PubMed ID: 10110682 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. 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]
55. Defaming a physician's career. The double edged sword of peer review privilege and immunity. Hwang NH J Leg Med; 2004 Mar; 25(1):95-109. PubMed ID: 15204916 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. Federal law offers protection for peer review. Holthaus D Hospitals; 1988 Jul; 62(13):46, 48. PubMed ID: 3384418 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. AIDS and the law of Virginia. Labowitz KE Geoge Mason Univ Civ Rights Law J; 1992; 3(1):67-112. PubMed ID: 11659881 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. Medico-legal aspects and concerns in quality assurance in the United States. Saxton JW; SherUnger S Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol; 2011 Jun; 25(3):409-17. PubMed ID: 21764008 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Trial and error. Medical courts, arbitration systems are among the ideas gaining attention as answers to the malpractice liability crisis. Romano M Mod Healthc; 2003 Sep; 33(36):26-9. PubMed ID: 14520833 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Legal review: a case study from California--the sharing of peer review information between hospitals and nonhospital providers. Brown LC Top Health Inf Manage; 1994 May; 14(4):68-73. PubMed ID: 10134763 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]