Search for: "Doe v. Board of Medical Examiners"
Results 61 - 80
of 749
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Dec 2015, 9:56 am
In Cordani v. [read post]
12 Jul 2023, 4:09 am
More specifically, does a doctor fall below the required standard of reasonable care by failing to make a patient aware of an alternative treatment in a situation where the doctor’s opinion was that the alternative treatment was not reasonable, and that opinion was supported by a responsible body of medical opinion (thus complying with what is sometimes referred to as the ‘professional practice test’ set out in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee… [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 3:26 am
The Board observed that in United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 8:42 am
Specifically, the Court concluded: “Regardless of whether the Claimant lacks current pulmonary symptoms or does not need current treatment, these are residual medical conditions that Claimant did not have prior to her employment with (her employer). [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 6:31 am
In Bedford Somerset MHMR v. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 12:18 pm
Texas Medical Board, a Fifth Circuit case involving the antitrust state-action immunity doctrine. [read post]
14 Mar 2015, 7:56 pm
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
12 May 2022, 7:40 am
Switzer and Davis v. [read post]
8 Apr 2022, 10:10 am
Ronald Hicks v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 4:20 pm
We believe that it is bad faith for an insurance company to rely upon the “independent medical examination” of a doctor who does not even believe in the medical condition they are being asked to examine. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 7:50 am
Bower v. [read post]
14 Dec 2014, 12:37 pm
The Act creates the NPDB, to which medical malpractice insurance carriers, boards of medical examiners and health care entities are required to report information regarding claims, disciplinary actions and other adverse information regarding a healthcare professional. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 9:54 am
The Board acknowledged the principle that a registration cannot be construed to encompass illegal goods (see, for example, Satinine Societa v. [read post]
30 Dec 2009, 7:20 am
The school board decided to send her to a medical examination to see if she was physically or mentally fit to perform her duties. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 3:22 am
The Board is not called upon to decide whether the Examining Division was or was not correct in this matter, but merely to decide whether the Examining Division arrived at this conclusion in a reasonable way.6.3 The Board can accept that the Examining Division faced the difficulty that the Guidelines do not define what "sufficiently substantiated" means in the case of illness. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 3:22 am
The Board is not called upon to decide whether the Examining Division was or was not correct in this matter, but merely to decide whether the Examining Division arrived at this conclusion in a reasonable way.6.3 The Board can accept that the Examining Division faced the difficulty that the Guidelines do not define what "sufficiently substantiated" means in the case of illness. [read post]
3 Jul 2011, 7:50 pm
On cross-examination, Steinsmith asked McCort if he had received “a mailing from me where I editorialize on a statement in the action report of the Medical Board, which was published on October 1996. [read post]
22 May 2021, 12:26 pm
Cir. 2018); ACCO Brands Corp. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 5:00 am
Allstate/Scott v. [read post]
