Search for: "State v. Doctor"
Results 6701 - 6720
of 9,598
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Dec 2011, 2:03 pm
Bev Perdue (D-NC) vetoed her state’s version of the bill, viewing it as “a dangerous intrusion into the confidential relationship that exists between women and their doctors. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 1:13 pm
In the recent decision, Wendell v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 3:22 pm
Sumedha V. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 9:56 am
#1 — DiCosolo v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 7:39 am
The style of the case is, Minnesota Life Insurance Company v. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 9:28 pm
Finally, family doctors (“primary care” doctors) are to get an increase in Medicaid reimbursements. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 4:30 am
In Fisher v. [read post]
23 Dec 2011, 12:42 pm
He had no doctor bills, lost wages, or physical impairment. [read post]
23 Dec 2011, 6:48 am
Goorbarry v. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 10:29 pm
On July 7th 2011, the grand chamber of the Court stated again in its judgment Al-Skeini and others v. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 10:29 pm
On July 7th 2011, the grand chamber of the Court stated again in its judgment Al-Skeini and others v. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 11:59 am
All this in a state – Illinois – where the highest court forbids FDCA-based common-law causes of action (see Martin v. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 8:02 pm
Sorrell v. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 8:01 pm
Sorrell v. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 1:20 am
Both the liability finding and the damages award were upheld on appeal last week in Ramos v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 5:17 am
This was the main issue contended in Jones v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 3:11 am
Practice gems : probate essentials 2011 [Toronto, Ont.] : Continuing Professional Development, Law Society of Upper Canada, 2011 KF 765 A75 L393 2011A Practice gems : probate essentials 2011 [Toronto, Ont.] : Continuing Professional Development, Law Society of Upper Canada, 2011 1 v. [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 5:34 pm
" Gunther v. [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 7:17 am
X, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 3271 (Admin) (09 December 2011) December 9, 2011 Decision of General Medical Council to refer to doctor’s severe depression in public decision was unlawful. [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 7:00 pm
"Although treating and examining physician opinions often deserve more weight than the opinions of doctors who review records...the law is clear . . . that the opinion of a treating physician does not bind the ALJ on the issue of functional capacity,'" the court ruled, quoting its opinion earlier this year in Brown v. [read post]
