Search for: "Goode v. Correctional Medical Services" Results 1 - 20 of 602
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Apr 2024, 11:33 am by admin
There was a good bit of irony in Egilman’s reaching out to me to help him prepare for my deposition of him in a silicone gel breast implant case. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 10:08 am by admin
The respondents claimed that the control data no longer existed, and inexplicably a good part of the experimental data had been destroyed. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 4:07 pm by Lundgren & Johnson, PSC
  Much like medical jargon or terms for any other area of specialized knowledge, if a person hasn’t had reason to encounter a legal term before, they wouldn’t have reason to know what the various words and phrases mean. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 3:23 pm by Richard Hunt
This brings us to self-service kiosks in medical facilities. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 5:00 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
Digests of WCAB Decisions Denied Judicial Review California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. [read post]
24 Nov 2023, 12:30 pm by John Ross
But we corrected that mistake en banc five years later, in 1987! [read post]
22 Nov 2023, 11:08 am by Richard Reibstein Esq.
What if a customer believes the deliverable is unsatisfactory, expects the independent contractor to make corrections or revisions, or asks for additional services that the independent contractor agrees to provide at the same or an added price? [read post]
4 Nov 2023, 7:07 am
In this case between race, ethnicity and essentializing tropes of their common characteristics, and the use of technologies to equalize physical capabilities grounded in correcting perceived (average) group characteristics (eg ibid., ¶ 12). [read post]
19 Oct 2023, 11:55 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
[added to Ch. 14, § 14.19] (defendant’s petition to disqualify the worker’s compensation judge did not establish good cause for disqualification) Quinn v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 11:17 am by John Elwood
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that a group called “Feds for Medical Freedom” could challenge that requirement in federal district court, despite the provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 channeling federal employees’ challenges to adverse personnel actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board, subject to review by the U.S. [read post]