This Article analyzes the possible antitrust liability of medical credentialing programs by dividing their potentially anticompetitive acts into three categories: (1) communicative behavior—for example, credentialing agencies’ promulgation of standards—designed primarily to influence government decision making; (2) communicative behavior designed to influence private decision makers, such as consumers, hospitals, and training programs; and (3) noncommunicative behavior—for example, an agreement by the credentialing agency and others to boycott a group of professionals—that might be used to exclude competitors from various fields of medical care. The author argues that the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, together with the related Noerr-Pennington doctrine, should exempt from antitrust law any credentialing standard that has been adopted for a good-faith purpose and is at least arguably reasonable. On the other hand, the author also argues that antitrust law should condemn any “sham” standard that in fact is designed to eliminate or to punish competitors, and any other noncommunicative behavior by credentialing agencies for the same purpose.

Past and present residents of the Love Canal area near Niagara Falls, New York, fear that they and their homes have been contaminated by toxic wastes seeping out from nearby chemical disposal sites. Hundreds of landfills nationwide are as potentially dangerous as Love Canal. In the absence of a statutory remedy, victims of contamination must rely upon common law theories of liability in order to recover damages for injuries suffered as a result of toxic waste contamination. This Note examines the merits and deficiencies of four common law theories: negligence, strict liability, nuisance and trespass. The Note concludes that none of these remedies is adequate to assure recovery to a person injured by toxic waste disposal, and recommends that legislation be adopted to ensure that victims of toxic waste contamination can be compensated for their injuries.

In 1971, medical studies determined that DES causes a rare type of vaginal cancer in a small number of daughters of mothers who took DES during pregnancy. Subsequently, medical studies determined that exposure to DES can cause other vaginal abnormalities in the daughters, some of which may be precancerous. As a result of these discoveries, many lawsuits have been filed by these daughters against DES manufacturers. Many DES suits may be barred by statutes of limitations, both because the number of years between the daughters’ exposure to DES in utero and the discovery that DES can cause injuries exceeds the statutory period, and because the cancer or other injuries caused by DES may not develop for many additional years. This Note discusses two methods that DES plaintiffs may be able to use to overcome the potential statutes of limitations bar: the discovery rule, and state provisions which toll the statute of limitations for minors. The Note contends that courts should apply an expanded discovery rule to DES suits to avoid the unfair result of barring a claim before the plaintiff could have known that she had a cause of action. In addition, the Note argues that the injury which causes the statute of limitations to begin to run in DES suits should not be rigidly defined. Finally, the Note urges that courts allow eligible DES plaintiffs to take advantage of applicable state provisions that toll the statute of limitations for minors.