Search for: "MARKS V HHS"
Results 81 - 100
of 113
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2009, 4:19 pm
Insurers may not directly discriminate against the sick, but can find other ways to keep high-risk patients out of their plans, as even the most market-oriented health policy experts realize: [T]o avoid patients with costly, complicated medical conditions, health plans could include in their networks relatively few doctors who specialize in treating those conditions, said Mark V. [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 8:01 pm
See Terkel v. [read post]
19 Dec 2023, 4:48 pm
The Departments establishment of the IDR fee for post-February 20, 2025 disputes and their previous December 15, 2023 announcement of the full reopening of the IDR portal for all dispute categories are part of the Departments’ ongoing response to the August 3, 2023 Federal District court ruling in Texas Medical Association, et al. v. [read post]
24 May 2007, 1:26 am
Rosa DeLauro and Diana DeGette Letter requests the President to use the Strategic Economic Dialogue between the U.S and China as an opportunity to reach an agreement on food imports that establishes genuine transparency and equivalent food safety regulations between both countries 05/23/2007
Letter to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health from the California Medical Association (PDF 117 KB) Letter supports elimination of the Medicare Advantage Private… [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 12:46 am
Background Mark Hermelin was the CEO of K-V Pharmaceutical Company from 1975 to 2008, as well as a member of the company’s board from 1975 to 2010. [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 4:41 pm
Data Privacy and Data Protection The 28 January 2020 marked the 14th edition of “Data Protection Day”, the anniversary of the opening for signature of Convention 108, the global data protection Convention. [read post]
1 Oct 2017, 4:08 pm
Max Hill v Mail on Sunday, A Man v The Gazette (Paisley) Ward v Mail on Sunday. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 8:46 am
Verrilli begins ponderously and the Chief Justice scampers right in to trip him up:GENERAL VERRILLI: The touchstone for resolving this case is the principle Justice Jackson articulated in Prince v. [read post]
26 Jan 2020, 4:24 pm
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia The Guardian has an article by leading commentator Richard Ackland, “Mark Speakman SC: meet the man leading the charge to update Australia’s lopsided defamation laws”. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 12:54 pm
White v. [read post]
25 Dec 2011, 3:05 pm
Duane HH, 95 AD2d 466.) [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 7:05 am
Ct. at 2051 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
”); Mark R. [read post]
19 Jun 2022, 5:19 am
(In two later applications, RM v UK (no. 29080/22) and HN v UK (no. 29084/22)), the Court also decided to apply an interim measure under Rule 39 staying their removal.) [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 11:17 am
That’s not required as a constitutional matter under the Free Exercise Clause; the Court decided that in Employment Division v. [read post]
9 May 2013, 9:22 am
One of the central policy issues injected into the current case of AMP v. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 4:50 pm
See HH Judge Parkes QC in Donovan v Gibbons [2014] EWHC 3406 (QB) at [6] and Warby J in Ames v Spamhaus Project Ltd [2015] EWHC 127 (QB) at [55]: “….there may be circumstances in which one would naturally expect to see tangible evidence that a statement had caused harm to reputation, but as practitioners in this field are well aware, it is generally impractical for a claimant to seek out witnesses to say that they read the words complained of and thought the… [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 11:06 am
The agency marked several significant accomplishments in FY 2022. [read post]
21 Dec 2022, 6:03 am
By Mark S. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 11:57 am
This case marks a departure from federal district court decisions[1] which have denied MAOs (and Medicare-substitute health maintenance organizations) a federal independent right to sue primary payers, and in some cases, indicated that MAOs should seek potential remedies in state court based on a contractual claim and/or conflict preemption principles. [read post]
