Search for: "Doctor v. State"
Results 3881 - 3900
of 8,646
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2014, 7:43 am
During that period, doctors could not test patients who they suspected of having the genetic mutation and thus could not prescribe effective therapies. [read post]
20 May 2024, 6:00 am
On August 10, 2023, a human resources employee emailed petitioner and stated: “[a]fter review of the medical documentation by the DOE doctor, restoration of health leave has been advised. [read post]
20 May 2024, 6:00 am
On August 10, 2023, a human resources employee emailed petitioner and stated: “[a]fter review of the medical documentation by the DOE doctor, restoration of health leave has been advised. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 11:38 am
As we discussed, the Michigan Court of Appeals previously stated in the case of People v. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 11:17 pm
Holocaust Memorial Museum archives)Justice TrialThere was also the 3d proceeding, United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 8:22 pm
With a 6-3 decision in Sorrell v. [read post]
30 Jan 2010, 10:38 am
In Ross v. [read post]
14 May 2010, 7:40 pm
” For example, Merritt’s doctor stated that there was nothing about Merritt’s medical condition which would have prevented her from returning to work. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 1:07 pm
Hwang v. [read post]
6 Jan 2024, 9:31 am
, Ansaarie v. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 3:50 am
Additional Resources:Taylor v. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 2:35 pm
The limits have been challenged before, but this case, Van Buren v. [read post]
10 Feb 2016, 7:17 am
Plaintiff allegedly told the doctor that the tests were negative, and the doctor stated the only mistake he made was to trust what the patient had said. [read post]
3 May 2018, 5:02 am
United States v. [read post]
22 Nov 2020, 7:29 pm
., v. [read post]
22 Aug 2023, 9:15 am
Tenpenny, D.O., Case No. 22-CRF-0168 State Medical Board of Ohio (Aug. 9, 2023). [8] David Gorski, “The American Board of Internal Medicine finally acts against two misinformation-spreading doctors,” Science-Based Medicine (Aug. 7, 2023). [read post]
17 May 2019, 9:19 am
This was solidified in the 2008 California Supreme Court case of Ross v. [read post]
3 Aug 2008, 5:49 pm
Mintz v. [read post]
3 Aug 2008, 5:49 pm
Mintz v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 6:36 am
Back in 2001, Witley & District Men’s Club tried toargue that an agreement stating that the worker would not be entitled to any payment for accrued holiday if he was dismissed for dishonesty fulfilled the requirements of Regulation 14 and could therefore be enforced (Witley & District Men’s Club v Mackay). [read post]
