Search for: "HEALTHCARE ESSENTIALS, INC." Results 41 - 60 of 623
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jan 2014, 6:52 am by Joy Waltemath
The Supreme Court’s framework for evaluating contract impairment claims involves a three-prong analysis announced in Energy Reserves Grp, Inc v Kansas Power & Light Co. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:17 am by Richard J. Webb
Essentially, this argument assumes there is such a vast difference in the bargaining power of the provider and the patient that the patient's consent to an arbitration agreement while in the process of seeking healthcare services was effectively coerced. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 4:43 pm
Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters, Inc. followed Justice Lemons' opinion in Stevens, quoting from it extensively. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 10:16 pm
Both Kats wonder what readers think, both within the pharma and healthcare industries and beyond it. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 8:23 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. [read post]
9 Jan 2021, 2:00 pm by Robert Liles
” When considering this question, it is important to keep in mind that the medical necessity is essentially a “standalone” determination, separate from each of the other elements. [read post]
27 Jan 2020, 11:20 am by Altman & Altman
Our healthcare system is charged with providing care to those in need of medical assistance – but far too often we find cases of healthcare administrators and doctors participating in widespread schemes to bilk money out of the federal government and the Medicare/Medicaid system. [read post]
17 May 2011, 7:30 am by Moseley Collins
App. 4th 158, 161-162 (Explaining, "...the hospital patient contract clearly falls within the category of agreements affecting the public interest" while distinguishing releases signed by participants in sports or recreational activities, because "... athletic or recreational activities, however enjoyable or beneficial, are not essential, as a hospital is to a patient" [citing Tunkl, supra at 92]); see also Health Net of California, Inc. v. [read post]