Sentences with phrase «claim reviewed by»

Every personal injury case in Weston is different and you need to have your claim reviewed by an experienced personal injury attorney for determining your rights and pursuing damages.

It thus makes sense to have any potential product liability claim reviewed by a lawyer who has expertise with motor vehicle product liability laws, and who has the skills and resources to pursue a complex claim against a major corporation.

You are entitled to having your claim reviewed by three different insurance adjusters.

Every doctor and healthcare provider who elects to be a participant in the Patient Compensation Fund is entitled to have claims reviewed by a panel of three doctors before it can proceed in the civil court system.

Not exact matches

Former head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Allan Fels will lead an independent panel to receive and review claims involving underpaid staff by franchisees of 7 - Eleven.

But the company claims that products have been reviewed by technicians who are free to append adverse comments.

Officially, China's Supreme People's Court claims the number of executions has dropped by half since the court resumed reviewing death sentences in 2006.

While research from the American Medical Association showed that 7.1 percent of all claims paid by insurers in 2013 contained a mistake, patient advocates and other professionals who review medical claims for accuracy put the frequency of billing errors at more like 80 percent or even 90 percent.

He said in a written statement the company was reviewing a letter outlining the claims, was saddened by Simon's death and takes its responsibilities for transporting pets seriously.

According to a new survey conducted by Dimensional Research, an overwhelming 90 percent of respondents who recalled reading online reviews claimed that positive online reviews influenced buying decisions, while 86 percent said buying decisions were influenced by negative online reviews.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results and EconoTimes specifically advises clients and prospects to carefully review all claims and representations made by advisors, bloggers, money managers and system vendors before investing any funds or opening an account with any Brokerage.

Kraken was selected in November 2014 by the MtGox trustee after extensive and objective review to assist MtGox creditors in investigating missing Bitcoin, filing claims, and distributing remaining assets.

BlackBerry's ability to manage inventory and asset risk; BlackBerry's reliance on suppliers of functional components for its products and risks relating to its supply chain; BlackBerry's ability to obtain rights to use software or components supplied by third parties; BlackBerry's ability to successfully maintain and enhance its brand; risks related to government regulations, including regulations relating to encryption technology; BlackBerry's ability to continue to adapt to recent board and management changes and headcount reductions; reliance on strategic alliances with third - party network infrastructure developers, software platform vendors and service platform vendors; BlackBerry's reliance on third - party manufacturers; potential defects and vulnerabilities in BlackBerry's products; risks related to litigation, including litigation claims arising from BlackBerry's practice of providing forward - looking guidance; potential charges relating to the impairment of intangible assets recorded on BlackBerry's balance sheet; risks as a result of actions of activist shareholders; government regulation of wireless spectrum and radio frequencies; risks related to economic and geopolitical conditions; risks associated with acquisitions; foreign exchange risks; and difficulties in forecasting BlackBerry's financial results given the rapid technological changes, evolving industry standards, intense competition and short product life cycles that characterize the wireless communications industry, and the company's previously disclosed review of strategic alternatives.

The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board can no longer review only some of the patent claims challenged by petitioners in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday in a 5 - 4 decision.

It was claimed in the budget and again in the Harper Platform that a «Strategic and Operating Review» could yield savings of $ 1 billion in 2012 - 13, $ 2 billion in 2013 - 14 and $ 4 billion ongoing by improving «the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and programs».

The March 2011 Budget claims that about $ 80 billion of direct program expenses will be reviewed with the objective of finding annual savings of $ 4 billion by 2014 - 15, which the Harper government claims is about 5 per cent of the review base.

«As management is currently reviewing the ATO's position and determining the appropriate steps to respond to and resolve the claims, no provision has been made in the 2017 accounts and we continue to stand by the pricing of our loans.

The Safety - Net Review completed in April by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission considered a claim by the ACTU for a $ 20 a week safety - net adjustment and an increase in award wages of 8.75 per cent; this was part of a larger three - stage claim seeking eventual award increases of around 30 per cent.

Following the review's publication, Bishop Peter Hancock, the Church of England's lead safeguarding bishop, said: «At the heart of this case was a judgment, on the balance of probabilities, as to whether, in the event that her claim for compensation reached trial, a court would have concluded that Carol was abused by Bishop Bell.

My preliminary research into Hartshorne's concept of God resulted in an article published in The Clergy Review which was a response to a criticism of him by Brian Davies, a British Thomist scholar.14 It appeared to me that Hartshorne's critics failed to see that his claims about God had to be seen within the context of his metaphysics.

Scientism claims that the natural world is all there is, that supernatural explanations of the world are irrational, that everything can be reduced to physical causes, and that the only things we can know as true are those which Science reveals — supported by evidence, submitted to experimentation, and reviewed by peers.

A general review of the endnotes from Gunter's paper reveals a fair number of sources who will corroborate the claim that Bergson's scientific views are nor only not outdated, but go very» much to the heart of current scientific methods and insights, but particularly, see A. C. Papanicolaou and Pete A. N. Gunter, eds., Bergson in Modern Thought Towards a Unified Science (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1987), and for important background on how Bergson came to be seen as dated when he was not, see also, Milic Capek, Bergson and Modern Physics, (cited above) and The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1961), and the volume edited by Gunter, Bergson and the Evolution of Physics (cited above).

The attack initiated by CAIR produced dozens and dozens of letters from as far away as Australia, some of them accompanied by hundreds of signatures of Muslims who claimed to be deeply offended by the review.

Capital punishment's lack of demonstrated superiority as a deterrent (the evidence for its effectiveness being at best mixed), the capacity of society to protect itself equally well by permanently imprisoning those who are currently being executed (which is possible at limited marginal cost, especially when one takes into account the cost of the extended trial procedures and interminable appeals and reviews which usually accompany capital punishment)-- all these points are important, but their utility is chiefly as rebuttal arguments in response to the empirically weak but emotionally strong claims made on behalf of capital punishment.

Edgar S. Brightman, who had himself been working for many years on the development of a nontraditional view of God, rejected Hartshorne's panentheism but praised other aspects of his view of God.35 Reinhold Niebuhr wrote a brief but very sympathetic review, 36 and John Bennett claimed that Hartshorne's was perhaps the best hypothesis about God available to contemporary theology.37 D. C. Macintosh found the book «exceptionally penetrating, stimulating, and instructive,» but by accusing Hartshorne of being too rationalistic he touched on what has been one of the major differences between Hartshorne and most other Whiteheadian theologians.38

Ther is a doctor by the nams of «Franenstein'that claims to have made progress in restoring brain activity after it has been lost, but he is a froeigner and none of his publications have been peer reviewed.

Lamin Sanneh reviews a new work by Leslie Newbigin in which Newbigin claims the focus on the dichotomy between «knowledge» of so - called objective facts and «belief» in so - called subjective values is a dichotomy that is rationally indefensible.

Some highlights of this collection are Khaled Abou El Fadl's eloquent explication of the complexities and restraints behind implementation of the death penalty under Islamic law; an interesting intersection between Fadl's discussion of reticence in the use of the death penalty and David Novak's review of capital cases in Jewish tradition; Stanley Hauerwas's unequivocal claim that the cross is justice (negatively in terms of Jesus» execution according to human law and positively in terms of the ultimate meaning of the cross as mercy and forgiveness); and, conversely, the claim by Beth Wilkinson, prosecutor in the Timothy McVeigh case, that «Even as a Christian, I felt nothing for Mr. McVeigh.»

They also criticised the Anglican leader's response to a review by Lord Carlisle of Berriew which found failings in how the Church of England responded to a claim the former Bishop of Chichester abused a girl - only known as Carol - during the 1950s.

Pages from Unlockd's IPO prospectus seen by The Australian Financial Review show the company claims to be booking monthly average revenue per user of $ 4.11, in comparison to $ 2.60 for Facebook, 83 cents for Twitter, 73 cents for Spotify and 65 cents for Snapchat.

The move will lower the raw milk price paid to dairy farmers by 0.5 p per litre - although the company claims it has committed to an immediate review of its milk pricing strategy should there be any upward movement in prices paid by its major processing competitors, namely Arla Foods UK and Dairy Crest.

First, page one features an article by Michael Smith - «Rod Sims: don't let me be misunderstood» (Australian Financial Review, 12 September 2014, pages 1 and 4) highlighting Sims» claim that the ACCC's proposed changes to s 46 have been «misinterpreted».

The news was rumoured by The Australian Financial review, who cited an internal memo claiming the Accolade boss would step down before the company floats on the stock exchange in 2017.

If you want to review what has been said, YOU claimed Coquelin would be captain of Arsenal, in the France team, and world class by the summer.

Javier «Chicharito» Hernandez will review his club future after the World Cup as he grows frustrated by a lack of playing time at West Ham, claims the Daily Mirror.

This overhaul comes ahead of the publication of the long delayed review into the governing body, amid allegations of favouritism and bullying, prompted by claims from Olympian Jess Varnish.

Your post is an exercise in tomfoolery, especially since you fail to provide any hard evidence to back up your claims and disprove the ref review done by Walter.

The Affinity Stroller by Britax isn't my kind of stroller but from what my sister says and what most reviews claim I can be tempted to use it any day.

I know that concern has been expressed by some that these devices have not been validated in peer - reviewed studies, and, as readers of MomsTEAM and my blog know, products which claim to actually prevent concussions or risk the severity of concussion symptoms without their claims being backed up by peer - reviewed studies ordinarily don't pass muster with me.

By submitting an Entry, each Participant (whether declared a Winner or not) agrees (and agrees to affirm such in writing) to (i) abide by and be bound by these Official Rules and the decisions of DeliciousBaby on all matters relating to this Giveaway which decisions are final and binding in all respects, (ii) waive any right to claim ambiguity in the Giveaway or these Official Rules, (iii) forever and irrevocably release, discharge, indemnify and hold harmless the Giveaway Entities, and each of their respective officers, directors, licensors, employees, representatives and agents (collectively, the «Released Parties») from any liability, claims, demands, and cause of action from personal injury, loss or damage, including death, or property damage, theft, or loss suffered or resulting in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, from participation in this Giveaway or the use, misuse or acceptance or possession of the Prize or any portion thereof, or participation in any Giveaway - related activity; (iv) grant DeliciousBaby (where permitted by law) the right to use their name on a worldwide basis, in all forms of media, in perpetuity without review or further compensation and, (v) warrant and represent that the use of the materials submitted in this Giveaway will not violate the rights of any third partieBy submitting an Entry, each Participant (whether declared a Winner or not) agrees (and agrees to affirm such in writing) to (i) abide by and be bound by these Official Rules and the decisions of DeliciousBaby on all matters relating to this Giveaway which decisions are final and binding in all respects, (ii) waive any right to claim ambiguity in the Giveaway or these Official Rules, (iii) forever and irrevocably release, discharge, indemnify and hold harmless the Giveaway Entities, and each of their respective officers, directors, licensors, employees, representatives and agents (collectively, the «Released Parties») from any liability, claims, demands, and cause of action from personal injury, loss or damage, including death, or property damage, theft, or loss suffered or resulting in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, from participation in this Giveaway or the use, misuse or acceptance or possession of the Prize or any portion thereof, or participation in any Giveaway - related activity; (iv) grant DeliciousBaby (where permitted by law) the right to use their name on a worldwide basis, in all forms of media, in perpetuity without review or further compensation and, (v) warrant and represent that the use of the materials submitted in this Giveaway will not violate the rights of any third partieby and be bound by these Official Rules and the decisions of DeliciousBaby on all matters relating to this Giveaway which decisions are final and binding in all respects, (ii) waive any right to claim ambiguity in the Giveaway or these Official Rules, (iii) forever and irrevocably release, discharge, indemnify and hold harmless the Giveaway Entities, and each of their respective officers, directors, licensors, employees, representatives and agents (collectively, the «Released Parties») from any liability, claims, demands, and cause of action from personal injury, loss or damage, including death, or property damage, theft, or loss suffered or resulting in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, from participation in this Giveaway or the use, misuse or acceptance or possession of the Prize or any portion thereof, or participation in any Giveaway - related activity; (iv) grant DeliciousBaby (where permitted by law) the right to use their name on a worldwide basis, in all forms of media, in perpetuity without review or further compensation and, (v) warrant and represent that the use of the materials submitted in this Giveaway will not violate the rights of any third partieby these Official Rules and the decisions of DeliciousBaby on all matters relating to this Giveaway which decisions are final and binding in all respects, (ii) waive any right to claim ambiguity in the Giveaway or these Official Rules, (iii) forever and irrevocably release, discharge, indemnify and hold harmless the Giveaway Entities, and each of their respective officers, directors, licensors, employees, representatives and agents (collectively, the «Released Parties») from any liability, claims, demands, and cause of action from personal injury, loss or damage, including death, or property damage, theft, or loss suffered or resulting in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, from participation in this Giveaway or the use, misuse or acceptance or possession of the Prize or any portion thereof, or participation in any Giveaway - related activity; (iv) grant DeliciousBaby (where permitted by law) the right to use their name on a worldwide basis, in all forms of media, in perpetuity without review or further compensation and, (v) warrant and represent that the use of the materials submitted in this Giveaway will not violate the rights of any third partieby law) the right to use their name on a worldwide basis, in all forms of media, in perpetuity without review or further compensation and, (v) warrant and represent that the use of the materials submitted in this Giveaway will not violate the rights of any third parties.

I've walked the fields of mega-tournaments, watched countless instructional DVDs and books, appeared on television to promote new football helmets, and, over the years, have turned down the chance to promote hundreds, if not thousands, of products, many making claims that could not be backed up by peer - reviewed studies, some whose advertisements were later found to be misleading by the Federal Trade Commission.

Personally, I find it rather ironic that you're lecturing the blog author on the rigor of language, when, faced with the need to support the claims made by a documentary that has faced absolutely no real standards of intellectual rigor or merit (the kind of evidence you apparently find convincing), you have so far managed to produce a study with a sample size too small to conclude anything, a review paper that basically summarized well known connections between vaginal and amniotic flora and poor outcomes in labor and birth before attempting to rescue what would have been just another OB review article with a few attention grabbing sentences about long term health implications, and a review article published in a trash journal.

Many of the headline health claims being made can't be substantiated, the sources they cite are not in line with health policy, graphs set out to mislead, and these adverts may also fail to meet the Government's own requirement for claims to be supported by peer — reviewed work.

Your article «Low doses of common chemical have science in a quandary» (News, Dec. 26) claims that exposure to low doses of Bisphenol - A (BPA) may lead to «possible widespread health risks,» and mentions a recent scientific review by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) as the evidence for this claim.

After an exhaustive investigation of the toxic gas hypothesis lasting three and a half years, methodically examining every aspect of the claim both by reviewing existing research, as well as by commissioning new research, the Expert Group has concluded that there is no evidence to support the claim that fire retardants in PVC cot mattresses cause SIDS.

Studies that have claimed the safety of out - of - hospital deliveries by using higher mean or high cut - off 5 min Apgar scores and reviews based on these studies should be treated with skepticism by obstetricians and midwives, by pregnant women, and by policy makers.

While writing this SNOO bassinet review, we were fascinated by the claims of this product.

If we want AP and «natural» parenting to become more common place I think we need to make sure the claims being made are scientifically backed up by peer reviewed studies.

Just as the press touts an unpublished, nonexistent study by researchers standing to profit from the claims, actual peer - reviewed science clashing with the mere claims of Bailes, Omalu, and company goes overlooked.

Civilian Complaint Review Board Chairman Richard Emery is being sued by the CCRB's executive director, Mina Malik, who claims she has been retaliated against after complaining that he referred to her and another female attorney as «pu --- s.»