An increase in malpractice claims is only one-indication of the problem physicians and attorneys have in their interprofessional relations. This Note explores the factors, such as increased specialization and social responsibility, that have given these professionals a myopic view of their respective roles.

The Note suggests that the crisis in interprofessional relations can be alleviated by interdisciplinary education in professional schools. It examines the problems inherent in current interdisciplinary programs and offers a model program jointly taught to law and medical students. The model course uses a problem solving approach that forces each student to examine the methods and limitations of both professions and to develop a concept of the professional’s role in society.

The medical malpractice crisis of the early and mid-1970s prompted many states to enact legislation creating medical malpractice screening tribunals. This legislation often failed to define clearly the role and jurisdiction of the tribunals. The lack of statutory definition is particularly apparent where a claim before a tribunal raises primarily nonmedical issues. The changing doctrines of hospital liability, involving both medical and nonmedical determinations, illuminate this jurisdictional difficulty.

This Note examines the Massachusetts courts' attempts to define the tribunal's role when the tribunal is confronted with issues of hospital liability and other unsettled areas of the substantive law of medical malpractice. The Note suggests that tribunals should be limited to deciding issues concerning medical treatment and the professional conduct of physicians and hospitals.

In National Gerimedical Hospital and Gerontology Center v. Blue Cross of Kansas City, the United States Supreme Court held that there is no blanket exemption from antitrust laws for health planning activities.‘The Court also held that no specific immunity can be granted where the challenged health planning activity is not undertaken pursuant to a federal regulatory scheme. This Comment reviews the Court’s decision and concludes that the Court correctly determined that the challenged activities did not qualify for an exemption. The Comment also examines the implications of the Court's statement that, where Congress has manifested a belief that competition is ineffective in the health care industry, application of the antitrust laws should be modified. The Comment recommends that an intermediate review standard such as the “presumptive, incentive modifying approach” should be used by future courts in deciding whether the ineffectiveness of competition in a given area of health planning activity warrants immunity from antitrust scrutiny.