Search for: "Borenstein v. Borenstein" Results 1 - 20 of 33
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Apr 2021, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"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]
19 Apr 2021, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"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 by Public Employment Law Press
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 by Public Employment Law Press
" 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]
2 Nov 2020, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
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 by Public Employment Law Press
" 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]
13 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
If the Medical Board concludes that a disability exists, the Board of Trustees "must then make its own evaluation as to the Medical Board's recommendation regarding causation" (Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d at 760). [read post]
13 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
If the Medical Board concludes that a disability exists, the Board of Trustees "must then make its own evaluation as to the Medical Board's recommendation regarding causation" (Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d at 760). [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]
14 Feb 2023, 8:07 am by admin
”) [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]
6 Dec 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"The Medical Board determines whether a member applying for disability retirement benefits is disabled, and the Board of Trustees is bound by the Medical Board's finding that an applicant is, or is not, disabled for duty" (Matter of Russell v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 155 AD3d 1046, 1046; see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760). [read post]
6 Dec 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"The Medical Board determines whether a member applying for disability retirement benefits is disabled, and the Board of Trustees is bound by the Medical Board's finding that an applicant is, or is not, disabled for duty" (Matter of Russell v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 155 AD3d 1046, 1046; see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760). [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]