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.
142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3225551)
1. Peer review immunity for bad faith activities. Patrick v. Burget fails to provide an answer. Trankina TJ J Med Assoc Ga; 1988 Sep; 77(9):724-6. PubMed ID: 3225551 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget. Kelly JP Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Hospital credentialing. Cowan RB; Montgomery CR J Miss State Med Assoc; 1987 Jan; 28(1):9-12. PubMed ID: 3820289 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Physician in a hospital setting. Zaslow J Leg Med; 1985; ():323-33. PubMed ID: 3869660 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986: an overview of its immunity provisions. Miles JJ Med Staff Couns; 1987; 1(2):1-9. PubMed ID: 10284641 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review in the wake of Patrick. McCormick B Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Peer review: Patrick redux. Cohen HH Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 10104770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The Patrick case: will it hinder peer review? Holthaus D Hospitals; 1988 Jun; 62(12):56. PubMed ID: 3378770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
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. 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]
16. Legal immunity for peer-review programs. Pedersen AB N Engl J Med; 1989 Jul; 321(4):265. PubMed ID: 2747768 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Operating a health facility during difficult times. Oliver TG Hosp Top; 1984; 62(6):25. PubMed ID: 10278284 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Friedman v. Delaware County Memorial Hospital: judicial protection for good-faith peer review. Dalton JF Healthspan; 1988 Jan; 5(1):18-21. PubMed ID: 10286662 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. A tale of four cases: Patrick, Bolt, Mitchell, and Oltz. Chenen AR Med Staff Couns; 1989; 3(2):51-4. PubMed ID: 10292421 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]