Legal Considerations in Quality Assurance

  • Donald N. Bersoff
  • Kit Kinports


Like other forms of professional conduct, those functions that can be subsumed under the heading of quality assurance have come under increasing judicial scrutiny. Although peer review has borne the brunt of this scrutiny in the 1980s, peer review is not equivalent to quality assurance, nor is it the only such activity to evoke the concern of the courts. In psychological training and practice, the process of enhancing the probability that professional psychologists will provide services of good quality encompasses many activities. It begins much earlier in time than peer review, involves examination by persons and groups who may be external to psychology itself, and includes review not only of individual performance but of institutional performance as well.


American Psychological Association Release Form Peer Review Process Confidential Information Monopoly Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Psychological Association. (1977). Standards for providers of psychological services(rev. ed). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (1981a). Ethical principles of psychologists. American Psychologist, 36, 633–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. (1981b). Specialty guidelines for the delivery of services by clinical psychologists. American Psychologist, 36, 640–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association. (1981c). Specialty guidelines for the delivery of services by counseling psychologists. American Psychologist, 36, 652–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Psychological Association. (1981d). Specialty guidelines for the delivery of services by industrial/organizational psychologists. American Psychologist, 36, 644–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. American Psychological Association. (1981e). Specialty guidelines for the delivery of services by school psychologists. American Psychologist, 36, 670–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 307 (1982).Google Scholar
  8. Ascherman v. Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, 45 Cal. App.3d 507, 119 Cal. Rptr. 507 (1975).Google Scholar
  9. Bersoff, D. N. (1983). Hospital privileges and the antitrust laws. American Psychologist, 38, 1238–1242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bersoff, D. N., & Jain, M. (1980). A practical guide to privileged communication for psychologists. In G. Cooke (Ed.). The role of the forensic psychologistSpringfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.Google Scholar
  11. Blue Cross of Northern California v. Superior Court of County of Yolo, 61 Cal. App.3d 800,132 Cal. Rptr. 635 (1976).Google Scholar
  12. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978).Google Scholar
  13. Charry v. Hall, 700 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
  14. Cohen v. State, 121 Ariz. 6, 588 P.2d 299 (1978).Google Scholar
  15. Doe v. Prudential Insurance Company. No. C-2307-84 (New Jersey Supreme Court, 1985).Google Scholar
  16. Falcone v. Middlesex County Medical Society, 34 N.J. 582, 170 A.2d 791 (1961)Google Scholar
  17. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975).Google Scholar
  18. Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205 (1979).Google Scholar
  19. McIntire, L. (1962). The action of abandonment in medical malpractice litigation. Tulane Law Review, 36, 834–842.Google Scholar
  20. National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978).Google Scholar
  21. Overcast, T., Sales, B., & Pollard, M. (1982). Applying antitrust laws to the professions. American Psychologist, 37, 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. People v. Pic’l 114 Cal. App.3d 824, 171 Cal. Rptr. 106 (1981), rev’d on other grounds, 31 Cal.3d 731, 646 P.2d 847, 183 Cal. Rptr. 685 (1982).Google Scholar
  23. Pinkster v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists, 1 Cal.3d. 160, 460 P.2d 495, 81 Cal. Rptr. 623 (1969).Google Scholar
  24. Quasem v. Kozarek, 716 F. 2d 1172 (7th Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
  25. Ratino v. Medical Service of the District of Columbia, 718 F.2d 1260 (1983).Google Scholar
  26. Rich, J. (1980). Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws. Whittier Law Review, 2, 667–681.Google Scholar
  27. Rodriguez, A. R. (1983). Psychological and psychiatric peer review at CHAMPUS. American Psychologist, 38, 941–947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sicpa North America, Inc. v. Donaldson Enterprises, Inc., 179 N.J. Super. 56, 430 A.2d 262 (1981).Google Scholar
  29. Taylor, C. (1983). Doctors’ maximum fee plan is unlawful per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Brigham Young Law Review, 10, 217–240.Google Scholar
  30. Union Labor Life Insurance Co. v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 119 (1982).Google Scholar
  31. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald N. Bersoff
    • 1
  • Kit Kinports
    • 1
  1. 1.Ennis, Friedman, & BersoffUSA

Personalised recommendations