Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conflicts of Interest Affecting Those Who Participate in Staff Privileges Matters

  • Published:
HEC Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES

  1. Mashaw JL. Administrative due process: The quest for a dignitary theory. Boston University Law Review, 1981; (61): 885.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Saks MJ and Blanck PD. Justice improved: The unrecognized benefits of aggregation and sampling in the trial of mass torts. Stanford Law Review, 1992; 44: 815.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sturm SP. A normative theory of public law remedies. Georgia Law Journal, 1991; (79): 1355.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mashaw JL. The Supreme Court' due process calculus for administrative adjudication in Mathews v. Eldridge Three factors in search of a theory of value. University of Chicago Law Review, 1976; 44: 28.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Michelman F. Formal and associational aims in procedural due process. In: Pennock J and Chapman J; eds. Due process: Nomos: XVIII. New York: NYU Press; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Saphire RB. Specifying due process values: Toward a more responsive approach to procedural protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1978; 127: 111.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Redish MH and Marshall LC. Adjudicatory independence and the values of procedural due process. Yale Law Journal, 1986; 95: 455.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Furrow BR, Greaney TL, Johnson SL, et al. eds. Health law (Practitioner Treatise Series). St. Paul, MN: West Group; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Erde EL. Conflicts of interest in medicine: A philosophical and ethical morphology. In Spece R et al. eds. Conflicts of interest in clinical practice and research. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Morrison AW. An analysis of anti-kickback and self-referral law in modern health care. Journal of Legal Medicine, 2000, 21: 351–394.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McAuliffe BE. The changing world of HMO liability under ERISA, Journal of Legal Medicine, 2001; 22: 77, 104–105.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dzienkowski JS; ed. Professional responsibility standards, rules & statutes. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Neyer FJ, Lang FR. Blood is thicker than water. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003; 84(2): 310–321.

    Google Scholar 

  14. King KE and Kilby M. Fifth amendment at trial. Georgia Law Journal, 2002; 90: 1690–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lanzarone MR. Note: Professional discipline: Unfairness and inefficiency in the administrative process. Fordham Law Review, 1983; 51: 818–837.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Manweiler K. Somewhere over the rainbow and through the looking glass: Administrative law practice and procedure. Advocate, 2002; 45: 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wolfe JS, Proszek LB. Interaction dynamics in federal administrative decision making: Of the inquisitorial judge and the adversarial system. Tulsa Law Journal.1997; 33: 293–347.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Asimow M. The administrative judiciary: ALJ's in historical perspective, 20 J. Nat'l A.Admin.L.Judges, 2000; 20: 157–165.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mintz BW. Administrative separation of functions: OSHA and the NLRB, Catholic University Law Review, 1998; 47: 877–917.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Morgan DR, Book review: Law's empire. Md. L. Rev. 1988; 47: 557–610.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Simons KW. The logic of egalitarian norms. Boston University Law Review, 2000; 80: 693–771.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Coons JE and Brennan PM. Nature and human equality. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 1995; 40: 287–334.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gold ME, Todd SA, Spiegler C, et al. When the drug trial fails: An approach to clinical drug studies. AANA Journal, 1999; 67(6): 505–512.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Spece R, Shimm D. and Buchanan A; eds. Conflicts of interest in clinical practice and research. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Spece R. The case against Arizona medical malpractice panels. Detroit Law Review, 1985; 63: 7.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sward EE. Values, ideology and the evolution of the adversary system. Indiana Law Journal, 1988/89; 64: 301–355.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nowak JE and Rotunda RD. Constitutional law, sixth edition. St. Paul Minn.: West Group; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bucy PH. Civil prosecution of health care fraud. Wake Forest Law Review, 1995; 30: 693–757.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Horner SL, The health care quality improvement act of 1986: Its history, provisions, applications and implications. Amercan Journal of Law and-Medicine, 1990; 16: 453–496.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wilson J. The definitional problems with “moral turpitude. ” J.Legal Prof., 1991; 16: 261–273.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Spece RG and Marchalonis JJ. Fourth amendment restrictions on scientific research misconduct proceedings at public institutions, health matrix. Journal of Law-Medicine, 2001; 11 (2): 571–626.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Roy G. Spece Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spece, R.G. Conflicts of Interest Affecting Those Who Participate in Staff Privileges Matters. HEC Forum 15, 188–227 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024905209404

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024905209404

Keywords

Search

Navigation