Abstract This paper deals with certain legal aspects of the U.S Health Care system. Medical staff privileges form an important aspect of the medical system in USA. Physicians are required to possess medical staff privileges in order to practice in one or more facilities. However, there are cases where the medical staff privileges of physicians have been limited or revoked by the medical staff of hospitals for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons. The paper under consideration identifies the key steps to be taken in the process of limiting/revoking a physician’s privileges. It briefly discusses the background of physicians’ privileges and the nature of hospital-physician relationship. It gives an insight into the medical peer review process in USA and its importance, the steps involved in the process as well as the administrative and regulatory legal issues to be considered in this context. It also sheds some light on the importance of case laws in USA by identifying a case law that involves limiting or removing a physician’s medical staff privileges. Finally, it ends with an appropriate conclusion. Key steps to be taken when considering limiting a physician’s privileges in USA Limiting or revoking the privileges of a medical practitioner is the extreme disciplinary step taken by the medical staff leaders of hospitals in USA. Usually, the hospital authorities try to deal with the issues of non-compliance on the part of the medical practitioners through less severe means before taking the ultimate disciplinary step. However, the primary objective of all health care organizations is providing optimum patient care and continuous disruptive behavior on the part of the physicians would certainly impact the effective functioning of these organizations. The key steps taken while limiting or revoking a physician’s privileges may be organization specific. However, some of the basic steps are:   * Validating the charges labeled against the physician under consideration by the peer review committee   * Appointing an ad hoc committee for investigating the medical procedures of the concerned physician and reviewing his/her services within the hospital   * Discussing the findings of the committee with the indicted physician while giving him/her the chance to present his/her opinion   * Comparing the peer review committee report with the findings of the ad hoc committee   * A warning to the indicted physician in case of a single confirmed act of indiscipline   * Giving the indicted physician a chance to improve his/her services in the field of patient care over a period of time   * Limiting/revoking the privileges in case of continuation of the violation of hospital policy (Nesse 2009) Validating the serious concerns raised by the peer review committee of a healthcare organization regarding the quality of patient care provided by one of its physician is a crucial step in the entire process. This is because there has a number of examples where the peer review committee reports of various hospitals have been laced with mistakes and other irregularities. As the first step in the process, the CEO of the hospital would forward the report to the medical director to review its findings. In cases which involve taking strict disciplinary measures, revalidation of the findings constitute another important step. The CEO would request the Medical Execu