Search for: "Claimant(s)"
Results 7541 - 7560
of 26,254
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2011, 10:11 am
Since retroactive benefits only go back one year, the claimant's first possible month of entitlement to a disability benefit would be December 2008 and last month of benefits would be November 2009. [read post]
21 Apr 2017, 8:26 am
Before we discuss issues dealing with the SSDI’s Compassionate Allowances program, it may be helpful to first look at how the application and approval process works in a typical case. [read post]
15 Aug 2015, 6:52 am
In this case, the appellate court found ALJ did not present a clear and convincing reason for finding she was not in as much pain as she had claimed and vacated the ALJ’s findings. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 10:22 pm
In this type of disability approval, a claimant's medical history (recent and past) and work history will have been reviewed and a determination will subsequently have to be made that the claimant is unable to return to their past work, or perform any form of "other work". [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 11:38 am
The Huffington Post reports: (Danielle) Thomas is an attorney with a legal-aid group that’s helping people navigate the sometimes-byzantine compensation process overseen by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF), which administers payouts from BP to workers and business owners affected by the disaster. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 7:11 am
The income guidelines are very strict, and, in the case of a disabled child, the child’s household income, including that earned by his or her parents, will be considered as part of a guidelines calculation. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 7:40 am
An insurance adjuster may tell you that a settlement is the company’s “best” or “final” offer. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 8:56 am
A policyholder requests consent to settle with the underlying claimant? [read post]
22 Oct 2011, 10:19 am
And on a more practical level, what does MoJ really mean by “publicly available information” on the claimant’s resources? [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 9:52 pm
If the claimant fails to beat the defendant’s offer then the existing consequences as set out in CPR 36.14(2) will apply, that is that the claimant will pay all of the defendant’s costs from then on, the assumption being that the costs in respect of the pre-offer period plus the damages recovered by the claimant will provide sufficient funds for the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 7:39 am
Valukas penned a nine-volume, 2,200-page report on the company’s ruin. [read post]
6 May 2019, 12:10 pm
In North Carolina, generally you, as the claimant, will not be deposed or questioned this way. [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 10:55 am
It also exemplifies how assertions consistent with one's previous experiences can bypass criticism. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 5:58 am
Determination of the tortfeasor’s duty is a question of law. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 1:33 pm
A restricted inspection report from the Office of Surveillance Commissioners dated September 2004 says the council's policy on using covert human intelligence sources was "clearly confused" and "displays a lack of understanding". [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 4:20 pm
” (FYI: There is no typo in the Plaintiff’s name in the above case caption.) [read post]
5 Dec 2023, 7:20 am
Those may be fair questions in the abstract, I suppose, but given that claimants/creditors who hate the Sacklers are pleading with the Court not to blow up the deal, humility would seem to argue for preserving it and affirming the Second Circuit's ruling. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 6:37 am
Community members might thus plausibly believe that they are being incorrectly tarred as especially judgmental, retrogressive, and intolerant based simply on outsiders' stereotypes (e.g., of Muslims or of conservative Christians).[5] To be sure, in traditional religious exemption cases, courts are supposed to accept claimants' assertions that the law substantially burdens their religious practices, at least so long as the courts conclude the claimants are sincere.[6] But… [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 11:20 am
So, the court did not allow a reduction for medical payments paid by the claimant's health insurer. [read post]
7 Feb 2020, 11:01 am
” In support of that contention, Steven and Thomas cited a provision enacted in 2007 that applied to Measure 37 claims during a special extension of the claims review process, ORS 197.353(3), and a provision of Measure 49 regarding calculation of a claimant’s acquisition date, ORS 195.328(1). [read post]
