Search for: "Doctor v. Employment Division"
Results 241 - 260
of 359
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Oct 2012, 10:19 pm
The latter was the holding in the peyote case (Employment Division v. [read post]
15 Sep 2012, 11:18 am
In the case, Custin v. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 7:24 am
McRae's doctor, but the doctor refused to meet with the employer's attorneys until Ms. [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 6:30 am
In the case of Cook et al, v. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 6:13 am
(EEOC v JES Personnel Consultants, Inc, NDIll, dkt no No. 11 C 5117). [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 12:09 pm
In Gallagher v. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
An employer may, but is not required to, create a new job or create a light-duty version of the disabled employee’s current job in order to provide a reasonable accommodation Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 2:53 am
David v Hack 2012 NY Slip Op 05479 Decided on July 10, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department is an example. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 4:04 am
” Richardson did not indicated that his physical disabilities played a role in his decision to retire and, in addition, he testified that he never discussed retirement with his doctors, did not advise the employer that he was retiring due to his disabilities and never asked for an accommodation to return to work within his restrictions. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 4:32 am
The ALJ ordered McRae to expressly authorize her physician to speak with counsel for her employer, and denied McRae's request for a certificate of immediate review by the Appellate Division. [read post]
14 May 2012, 7:22 am
TDI-DWC Gives Authorization to Certify Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) and Assign an Impairment Rating The Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers’ Compensation reminds all workers’ compensation system participants that the Texas Labor Code and TDI-DWC rules impose certain requirements for a doctor to become authorized to certify maximum medical improvement (MMI) and assign impairment ratings for claims in the Texas workers’ compensation system. [read post]
7 May 2012, 6:00 am
The Benefits Review Board found in Lindsay v. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 6:04 am
The Appellate Division affirmed. [read post]
22 Apr 2012, 3:34 pm
These developments place all employers covered by the Act in a very difficult position. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 1:14 pm
This case was Flores v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 7:04 am
The Appellate Division affirmed. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 9:03 pm
On Tuesday, March 27, the Supreme Court will meet for the second day of hearings on constitutional issues surrounding the new federal health care law. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 3:27 pm
Identify and avoid the poorly performing doctors 2. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 12:14 pm
In adopting the ministerial exception, the Court distinguished its prior holding in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. [read post]
