Search for: "Doctor v. Employment Division"
Results 221 - 240
of 359
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Nov 2013, 9:01 am
But in Smith v. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 12:09 pm
Engle, associate director of the Advertising Practices Division at the Federal Trade Commission, sums it up this way: “In a traditional ad with a celebrity, everyone assumes that they are being paid.12 When it’s not obvious that it is an ad, people should disclose that they are being paid. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 8:49 am
The district initiated an investigation, and several employees filed employment discrimination complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 9:53 am
Borello & Sons, Inc v Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division said that “These facts would have been highly material to her claim against [the day care center], and it was highly misleading, at best, for [AD] to omit her City employment from her submissions to the District Court. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
”), medical doctors are most interested in the effective treatment of their patients, and thus typically tell it like it is. [read post]
6 Oct 2013, 11:03 am
In Matter of Dunn, Lake v M.P.C. [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 5:54 am
The employer is required rebut the statutory presumption that the applicant for accidental disability retirement benefits suffered a World Trade Center-related post-traumatic stress disorder with competent medical evidence Ginther v Kelly, 2013 NY Slip Op 05967, Appellate Division, First Department §13-252.1 of New York City’s Administrative Code, was amended by adding a new provision, §13-252.1[1], the so-called “World Trade Center Law. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 4:28 am
Ever since the Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act in U.S. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 4:37 am
The fund denied the doctor's request on the basis that the doctor had not demonstrated the medical necessity of the extra treatments.A workers' compensation law judge upheld the fund's decision, as did the Workers' Compensation Board. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 7:37 am
Over a decade ago, in Viscik v. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 4:05 am
Federal regulation did not preempt employer’s obligation to collectively bargain a new employer policy in this instance City of New York v Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of N.Y., 2013 NY Slip Op 04887, Appellate Division, First Department The City of New York filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 in an effort to annul a decision by the Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York granting the union’s improper practice… [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 1:40 pm
Wright, et al (June 7, 2013)(unpublished) and Blake v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
The decisions are Gross v. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 9:53 am
Borello & Sons, Inc v Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 9:01 pm
In New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 6:20 am
” In Young v. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 4:37 pm
Farechase, eBay v. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 10:46 am
Which brings us to the Law Offices of Catalano & Plache v. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 3:26 am
Di Giacomo v Michael S. [read post]
