Search for: "Doe v. Board of Medical Examiners"
Results 381 - 400
of 750
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2015, 2:18 pm
Another issue: WTO is now undertaking role in enforcing treaties; no longer a role for WIPO—development agenda comes on board only as WIPO loses relevance. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:18 pm
” The man cooperated and was transported to the hospital for further examination. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 8:00 am
It was consistent with the recommendation of the doctors who examined him, and the board acted in a timely manner. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 11:24 am
Picard v. [read post]
29 May 2015, 7:37 am
(See Virginia v. [read post]
29 May 2015, 6:58 am
In Estate of Adell v. [read post]
5 May 2015, 3:26 pm
Even though M.G.L. c. 118E, s. 48 provides that the Director of the Board of Hearings “shall be responsible …for the training of referees,” it is unknown to the elder law bar whether such training has occurred regarding the details of federal Medicaid trust law, so hearing officers at the Board of Hearings may have been and may still be susceptible to being misled by the MassHealth Essay. [read post]
5 May 2015, 3:26 pm
Even though M.G.L. c. 118E, s. 48 provides that the Director of the Board of Hearings “shall be responsible …for the training of referees,” it is unknown to the elder law bar whether such training has occurred regarding the details of federal Medicaid trust law, so hearing officers at the Board of Hearings may have been and may still be susceptible to being misled by the MassHealth Essay. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 12:47 pm
That is a question that the Court examined, but ultimately did not rule upon, in 2014 in the case of Thurber v. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 10:00 am
Whether an IP rule is worth the cost depends, as it does with any other regulation, on whether the benefits we get from that rule (presumably increased or higher-quality innovation or creativity) are worth the costs. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
And as the Supreme Court made clear 50 years ago in Brandenburg v. [read post]
Do pregnant workers get ‘most-favored-employee’ status in High Court’s pregnancy accommodation case?
26 Mar 2015, 11:05 am
Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kennedy and Thomas joined (Young v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 8:42 am
Specifically, the Court concluded: “Regardless of whether the Claimant lacks current pulmonary symptoms or does not need current treatment, these are residual medical conditions that Claimant did not have prior to her employment with (her employer). [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 4:23 am
”Last year the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board issued a significant panel decision, Patterson v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 6:00 am
If, on closer examination, it becomes apparent that patients with rare diseases are disproportionately denied funding for medical services or disproportionately affected by denial of funding, then differential treatment is established. [read post]
14 Mar 2015, 7:56 pm
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
14 Mar 2015, 7:56 pm
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 6:09 am
In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in B&B Hardware v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 6:47 am
This post examines an opinion a U.S. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 1:37 pm
Supreme Court concluded in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
