Search for: "State v. Doctor"
Results 4221 - 4240
of 9,595
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Apr 2008, 7:27 am
., Eck v. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 7:56 pm
On April 1, 2011, in United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 8:30 pm
The case of United States v Hunt, 521 F. 3d 636 (6th Cir. 2008) was a fraud prosecution of a doctor, who had signed medical necessity orders necessary to allow Noble, a diagnostic technician, to receive Medicare and private insurance payments for ultrasound tests performed on patients seen by the doctor. [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 8:32 pm
" United States 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]
19 Dec 2020, 9:03 am
In Davila v. [read post]
Healthcare and Federalism: Should courts strictly scrutinize federal regulation of medical services?
14 Aug 2011, 8:39 am
But here's the rub: Limits on insurance coverage provided by the feds under Medicare (or PACA) will obviously affect the standards of medical care provided by state-regulated doctors and hospitals. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 12:16 pm
The Pennsylvania case is Wisniewski v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 2:07 am
However, in another German case before the ECJ, Petersen v Berufungsausschuss fuer Zahnaertze fuer den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe it was not justifiable for a maximum age of 68 to be imposed on doctors and dentists practising in the state medical system where it was alleged that the rule was necessary to protect patients from a decline in performance as doctors and dentists got older: no such age limit existed in the private sector. [read post]
16 Feb 2014, 12:52 pm
State Dept. of Social and Health Svcs. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 8:59 am
The case is Straka v. [read post]
3 Aug 2008, 5:49 pm
Mintz v. [read post]
3 Aug 2008, 5:49 pm
Mintz v. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 4:49 pm
There was evidence instead that Dank supplied “BB Formula” to Cronulla, which the club doctor stated was recommended “for animal treatment only” and described as “a unique rice bran extract emulsion. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 4:14 am
But your dissenting opinion last week in Ramkumar v. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 6:32 am
Kaplan successfully argued for Edie Windsor in United States v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 9:04 am
[57] In Barker v. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 1:28 pm
” Sorrell v. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 1:04 pm
Falcon 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]
