Search for: "State v. Board of Medical Examiners"
Results 61 - 80
of 983
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2022, 9:08 pm
FootnotesFootnote 1: The employer failed to obtain an independent medical examination of claimant and was found to have waived its right to do so. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 12:50 pm
The Supreme Court recognized as much in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 4:02 pm
All state laws vary. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 8:58 am
In Giant Eagle v. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:50 pm
On June 22, 2023, the Appeals Board issued an en banc decision in Nunes v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 2:30 am
The same hospital is required by section 805(b) to report certain disciplinary actions to the Medical Board. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 2:30 am
The same hospital is required by section 805(b) to report certain disciplinary actions to the Medical Board. [read post]
19 Jul 2013, 3:40 am
Caymus Vineyards v. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 9:52 am
On Monday, we saw the contours of state-action immunity from federal antitrust law, and on Tuesday, we saw the basic facts of the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 6:00 am
Here, the conclusions of the Medical Board were supported by credible evidence, such as its independent interviews and examinations of the petitioner and its review of medical [*2]records from her treating physicians, including, inter alia, reports relating to multiple MRIs of her right knee (see Matter of Maxwell v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 210 AD3d at 1096; cf. [read post]
13 May 2024, 6:00 am
Here, the conclusions of the Medical Board were supported by credible evidence, such as its independent interviews and examinations of the petitioner and its review of medical [*2]records from her treating physicians, including, inter alia, reports relating to multiple MRIs of her right knee (see Matter of Maxwell v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 210 AD3d at 1096; cf. [read post]
13 Dec 2015, 9:30 pm
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court held in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 8:17 am
See Vitronics Corp. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 5:08 am
Upon the completion of such examination the medical board shall report and certify to the board whether such beneficiary is or is not totally or partially incapacitated physically or mentally and whether he or she is or is not engaged in or able to engage in a gainful occupation. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 9:36 am
In Frances Margraf v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 3:26 am
The Board observed that in United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 4:00 am
" Citing Matter of Corina-Chernosky v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 157 AD3d 1067, the Appellate Division said that "To be entitled to workers' compensation benefits for an occupational disease, a claimant must establish a recognizable link between his or her condition and a distinctive feature of his or her occupation through the submission of competent medical evidence". [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 4:00 am
" Citing Matter of Corina-Chernosky v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 157 AD3d 1067, the Appellate Division said that "To be entitled to workers' compensation benefits for an occupational disease, a claimant must establish a recognizable link between his or her condition and a distinctive feature of his or her occupation through the submission of competent medical evidence". [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 12:28 pm
Traditionally, regulation of the medical profession has been the province of the States and state medical boards. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 10:56 am
The Court disagreed, and stated that the defense was asking for an overly strict reading of the statute. [read post]
