Search for: "Doctor v. Employment Division"
Results 201 - 220
of 359
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Case preview: Greater Glasgow Health Board (Appellant) v Doogan and another (Respondents) (Scotland)
11 Nov 2014, 7:03 am
It is invoked by nurses, midwives, doctors, pharmacists and others. [read post]
5 Oct 2014, 11:47 am
There was extensive testimony by doctors about the lesion and its interpretation. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 6:00 am
Younan v. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 7:27 pm
See, e.g., O’Donnell v. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 9:01 pm
The PDA was necessitated by a Supreme Court decision two years earlier, General Electric v. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 8:27 am
Tanfield v. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 7:20 pm
” … [Section] 181.21 is decidedly not like the neutral statute at issue in Employment Division v. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 7:10 am
Doctors said his care would cost $125,000 every year for the rest of his profoundly disabled life. [read post]
17 Jul 2014, 1:24 am
The court stated in Valdez v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 7:30 am
FRENCH: Cliquez ici pour le télécharger. .GRAND CHAMBERCASE OF S.A.S. v. [read post]
30 May 2014, 9:20 am
Young v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 4:19 am
In Torres-Ramos v. [read post]
26 Apr 2014, 11:00 am
In the New York case Moll v. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 4:33 am
One of the more controversial elements of California workers' compensation law is the requirement in litigated cases to use Qualified Medical Examiners to resolve disputed medical and disability issues (other than treatment since SB 863 came out).In the old days the litigants would get their own doctors to say what they wanted them to say.Often enough there would be multiple doctors opining on different medical issues due to specialization and the number of body parts… [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 6:12 am
Affirming, the New York Appellate Division reasoned that because his own doctor determined he could not spend time in the field, he could not perform an essential function of his position. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 12:46 pm
He obviously has a perspective of his own on the underlying issues — he was, for instance, a forceful critic of the Court’s Employment Division v. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 4:15 am
You got it - the courts...The rules and requirements are so complex that it is nearly impossible for the less than expert employer to follow them without some mistake.The forms that the Division of Workers' Compensation approves are so intimidating, so legal, and yes, complex, that they scare the injured worker into seeking legal advise.Jose Dubon had suffered injuries to his back in 2003 and 2004 while working for World Restoration. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 4:07 am
Although her doctor placed work restrictions on her during that time, her employer was able to accommodate those restrictions without wage loss and therefore did not report the injury to the Division of Workers' Compensation or admit or deny liability. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm
” As I explained in an earlier post, Congress intended RFRA to incorporate by reference the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence from the era preceding Employment Division v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 4:21 am
IMSS also covers medical expenses arising from work-related injuries if the care is obtained from within the IMSS network of doctors. [read post]
