Search for: "LUNG v. STATE" Results 601 - 620 of 1,049
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jul 2013, 10:21 am by Jon Gelman
A "non-scheduled" loss is one involving any area or system of the body not specifically identified in the schedule, such as the back, the heart, the lungs. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 4:18 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 Critics within the defense bar expressed concerns that the Court of Appeals' decision limits ingestion via the lungs, i.e. with smoke. [read post]
19 Jul 2013, 9:00 am by Robert Kreisman
Related blog posts: Doctors’ Failure to Timely Diagnose Lung Cancer Leads to $850,000 Settlement – Sahagun v. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 1:48 pm by WIMS
On Petition for Review of Final Agency Action of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081). [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 1:34 pm by Schachtman
The authors stated that the experiment had the approval of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Human Subjects. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 11:30 am by Joe Consumer
Yet by the majority’s lights, the very act of creating that requirement in order to “safeguard the consumer,”  United  States v. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 1:26 pm by Schachtman
See, e.g., Shopland, “Smoking-Attributable Cancer Mortality in 1991: Is Lung Cancer Now the Leading Cause of Death Among Smokers in the United States? [read post]