Search for: "Curtis v. Board of Supervisors"
Results 1 - 6
of 6
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2022, 9:08 pm
" In light of the foregoing, and given that no contrary medical opinions were presented, the Board's factual determination that claimant suffered from an occupational disease resulting from repetitive stress is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Garcia v MCI Interiors, Inc., 158 AD3d 907, 908 [2018]; Matter of Curtis v Xerox, 66 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2009]). [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:08 pm
" In light of the foregoing, and given that no contrary medical opinions were presented, the Board's factual determination that claimant suffered from an occupational disease resulting from repetitive stress is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Garcia v MCI Interiors, Inc., 158 AD3d 907, 908 [2018]; Matter of Curtis v Xerox, 66 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2009]). [read post]
29 Dec 2006, 3:26 pm
Big Flatrock River Board of Supervisors of Rush County, et al. [read post]
18 Jan 2008, 1:04 pm
Clancy v. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 2:24 am
”[14] The plaintiffs offered this fact as a reason why they could not identify the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products that were used on board ship. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 9:53 pm
Curtis Forbes that morning! [read post]
