Search for: "Borenstein v. Borenstein"
Results 1 - 20
of 27
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Sep 2017, 8:00 am
Last week, in Borenstein v. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 7:00 am
"A mere conflict in opinion among physicians is not a ground for disturbing a determination; and [3] "Courts may not 'substitute [their] own judgment for that of the Medical Board,' citing Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d at 761. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 10:23 am
See Shilkoff v. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 7:00 am
"A mere conflict in opinion among physicians is not a ground for disturbing a determination; and [3] "Courts may not 'substitute [their] own judgment for that of the Medical Board,' citing Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d at 761. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 7:00 am
Citing Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement System, 88 NY2d 756, the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court's ruling, concluding that the denial of Plaintiff's application for ADR was "not arbitrary and capricious, but [was] based on credible evidence in the record. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 7:00 am
Citing Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement System, 88 NY2d 756, the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court's ruling, concluding that the denial of Plaintiff's application for ADR was "not arbitrary and capricious, but [was] based on credible evidence in the record. [read post]
17 Nov 2022, 5:30 am
" Citing Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement System, 88 NY2d 756, the court said that the Medical Board "properly based its conclusion on its examination" of the Applicant and his medical records, which provided some credible evidence to support its findings. [read post]
17 Nov 2022, 5:30 am
" Citing Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement System, 88 NY2d 756, the court said that the Medical Board "properly based its conclusion on its examination" of the Applicant and his medical records, which provided some credible evidence to support its findings. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 4:00 am
Citing Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 4:32 am
Citing Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement System, 88 NY2d 756, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court “exceeded the scope of its review,” which is to determine “whether ‘some credible evidence’ supported the Medical Board's determination as to disability. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 5:33 pm
Borenstein to read the entire Order. [read post]
14 Feb 2023, 8:07 am
”) [8] James Mortimer, Amy Borenstein, and Lorene Nelson, “Associations of welding and manganese exposure with Parkinson disease: Review and meta-analysis,” 79 Neurology 1174 (2012). [9] Bernard D. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
Denver Mattress Co., LLC (not precedential) (TTABlog) 9th Circuit: Judicial estoppel does not bar trade dress theory: Larin Corp. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
Denver Mattress Co., LLC (not precedential) (TTABlog) 9th Circuit: Judicial estoppel does not bar trade dress theory: Larin Corp. v. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 5:33 am
Among the speakers: Lois Lerner (Director, IRS Exempt Organizations), Diana Aviv (President and CEO, Independent Sector), Eve Borenstein, Ellen Aprill (Professor of Law, Loyola Law School), Bruce Hopkins, Jody Blazek, and Rob Wexler. [read post]
22 Oct 2016, 2:40 pm
Brian v. [read post]
5 Feb 2016, 7:55 am
Batty v. [read post]
15 Jun 2013, 3:21 pm
See Cooley v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 7:48 am
James Mortimer, Street v. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 11:27 am
The MDL court noted that both sides had cited Borenstein’s textbook on meta-analysis,[27] and that Wells had himself cited the Cochrane Handbook[28] for the basic proposition that that objective and scientifically valid study selection criteria should be clearly stated in advance to ensure the objectivity of the analysis. [read post]
