Search for: "United HealthCare Services Inc"
Results 621 - 640
of 1,138
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2014, 9:10 am
Limited, non-exclusive right to republished granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 7:29 pm
Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) where a regulation of speech-regulated conduct within 100 feet of a healthcare facility was upheld as it did not regulate the content of any speech. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 11:51 am
Limited, non-exclusive right to republished granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 9:54 am
” As a result of the settlement agreement, Omnicare, Inc. is obligated to pay a total of $124 million; with $116 million apportioned to the United States government, $8.2 million to various states, and $17 million to the Omnicare employee who filed the lawsuit. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 8:46 am
In Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc, 359 NLRB No. 37 (2012), five employees of a non-profit social services provider (the Respondent) posted Facebook comments in response to a co-worker’s criticism of their job performance. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 2:46 am
In Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc, 359 NLRB No. 37 (2012), five employees of a non-profit social services provider (the Respondent) posted Facebook comments in response to a co-worker’s criticism of their job performance. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 10:15 pm
A computer glitch caused the MCO erroneously to indicate to its contracted providers, including BETH ISRAEL and SLR, that they should seek additional reimbursement from Medicaid for the healthcare services they provided to the enrollees. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 2:46 pm
As the Fourth Circuit put it in Liberty University, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 9:22 am
Specht attempted to license his software to a healthcare consulting firm, but that also failed. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 7:32 am
Healthcare at Home Ltd v The Common Services Agency, heard 23 June 2014. [read post]
29 Jun 2014, 5:30 am
TV groups cheer Supreme Court’s ruling on upstart Aereo http://t.co/lTw0q8hFAJ -> Aereo: SCOTUS rules its service infringing: The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 6 to 3 opinion… http://t.co/uL8dtml7z8 -> US Supreme Court Rules Aereo Business Model Does Not Get Around US Copyright Law http://t.co/kxLKUrq1ti -> Aereo has lost: Will cloud computing just yawn? [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
” Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 2:44 am
Also on Monday, the Court will hear the appeal of Healthcare at Home Ltd v The Common Services Agency regarding invitation to tender processes and whether a reference to the CJEU is necessary to bring clarity to the issue. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 12:00 am
[i]Ben Goad, High Court Split on Birth Control Mandate, The Hill, Mar. 25, 2014, http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/healthcare/201651-court-fractured-on-o-cares-birth-control [ii] Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
30 May 2014, 8:33 pm
-based company were filed under seal in 2009 by a former employee of the firm’s Israeli unit. [read post]
28 May 2014, 6:35 am
©2014 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. [read post]
15 May 2014, 10:00 am
Employersyand fiduciaries of 401(k) plans should take note of the potential need to adopt a mid-year amendment to their plans to comply with new guidance of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concerning the need to timely amend their plans to comply with IRS recent guidance on when their plans must afford same-sex partners treatment equivalent to opposite-sex married couples issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in… [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 12:48 pm
This settlement resolves healthcare whistleblower allegations that, between 2008 and 2010, Amedisys Inc. improperly billed Medicare for ineligible patients and services. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 7:40 am
Amgen Inc. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 6:20 am
The United States alleged that Amedisys’ financial relationship with a private oncology practice in Georgia – whereby Amedisys employees provided patient care coordination services to the oncology practice at below-market prices – violated statutory requirements. [read post]
