126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2980936)
1. Peer review and you.
Dorian AL
Qual Assur Util Rev; 1988 Aug; 3(3):84-7. PubMed ID: 2980936
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Medical peer review under legal knife.
Kosterlitz J
Natl J (Wash); 1988 Mar; 20(13):820. PubMed ID: 10286588
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Antitrust. Fear of the peer review.
Lerner AN; Spong SG
Group Pract J; 1989; 38(5):22, 24-7. PubMed ID: 10295461
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. High court's override on Patrick renews concerns about peer review risk.
Halper HR; Kazon PM
Bus Health; 1988 Jul; 5(9):40-1. PubMed ID: 10288490
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Are hospital peer review committees immune from federal antitrust liability?
FitzGerald RM; Howarth BM
Med Group Manage J; 1989; 36(1):14. PubMed ID: 10291907
[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. Legal aspects of peer review. Patrick v Burget in the U.S. Supreme Court: its impact on peer review.
Couch JB
Qual Assur Util Rev; 1988 May; 3(2):59-60. PubMed ID: 2980931
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Medical peer review of physician competence and performance: legal immunity and the antitrust laws.
Curran WJ
N Engl J Med; 1987 Mar; 316(10):597-8. PubMed ID: 3807954
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Oregon case raises questions about peer review.
Davis CD
Healthtexas; 1989 Jan; 44(7):7. PubMed ID: 10313055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Peer review in the wake of Patrick.
McCormick B
Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. The Patrick case: will it hinder peer review?
Holthaus D
Hospitals; 1988 Jun; 62(12):56. PubMed ID: 3378770
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget.
Kelly JP
Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658
[No 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. 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]
20. Eleventh Circuit allows state action defense in medical staff antitrust case.
Miller RD
Hosp Law Newsl; 1989 Jan; 6(3):1-5. PubMed ID: 10292016
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
