{"title":"医务人员特权与反垄断法:公司内部阴谋论适用吗?","authors":"A G Meghrigian","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The occasional imposition of antitrust liability on medical staff members for actions involving peer review is not a sufficient reason to abandon medical staff participation in the peer review process. This article reviews some of the case law in which the applicability of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to medical staff peer review activity has been decided and explains why appropriate medical staff involvement in such activity does not raise the risk of antitrust liability.</p>","PeriodicalId":79747,"journal":{"name":"The Medical staff counselor","volume":"6 2","pages":"9-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: does the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine apply?\",\"authors\":\"A G Meghrigian\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The occasional imposition of antitrust liability on medical staff members for actions involving peer review is not a sufficient reason to abandon medical staff participation in the peer review process. This article reviews some of the case law in which the applicability of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to medical staff peer review activity has been decided and explains why appropriate medical staff involvement in such activity does not raise the risk of antitrust liability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Medical staff counselor\",\"volume\":\"6 2\",\"pages\":\"9-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1992-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Medical staff counselor\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Medical staff counselor","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: does the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine apply?
The occasional imposition of antitrust liability on medical staff members for actions involving peer review is not a sufficient reason to abandon medical staff participation in the peer review process. This article reviews some of the case law in which the applicability of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to medical staff peer review activity has been decided and explains why appropriate medical staff involvement in such activity does not raise the risk of antitrust liability.