Sentences with phrase «of electronic record»

Seeking the job of a medical secretary with Sancta Health Clinic, offering over 5 years progressive experience in front office management within healthcare arena, strong knowledge of electronic record system and coding protocols, and effective skills in communication.

Objective: Seeking the job of a medical secretary with Sancta Health Clinic, offering over 5 years progressive experience in front office management within healthcare arena, strong knowledge of electronic record system and coding protocols, and effective skills in communication

Now, the way electronic discovery and admissibility proceedings concerning electronic records are conducted, they too appear to produce sufficiently accurate results on the facts as presented, nevertheless, because the integrity of the electronic record systems in which such records are stored is not being investigated and challenged, those proceedings have an unacceptably high probability of not doing «justice.»

Essentially the UETA provides that the holder of a note or document of title is the person with control of the electronic record.

The three analogies: (1) whereas a pre-electronic paper record can be symbolized by a piece of paper in a file drawer, an electronic record is like a drop of water in a pool of water, i.e., it is completely dependent upon its ERMS for its existence, accessibility, and «integrity» (as that word is used in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts; e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA); (2) if expert opinion evidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and injustice.

This appeal requires an examination of the effect of electronic record management on the laws of evidence, which were formulated on different assumptions about how records are kept.

That fundamental dependence of an electronic record upon its ERMS for everything is the «system integrity» concept, i.e., the integrity of an electronic record is dependent upon the integrity of the ERMS wherein it is stored.

My advice to clients is to bring a trusted person as a witness to all visits and have some sort of electronic record of the appointment.

The admissibility of an electronic record requires proof of its records management «system integrity»; e.g.: Canada Evidence Act (CEA) s. 31.2 (1)(a); and, Ontario Evidence Act (OEA) s. 34.1 (5), (5.1).

As shown by the case law, that is ignored, which is a failure to acknowledge the fundamental nature of an electronic record.

[ii] The integrity (reliability; truthfulness) of an electronic record is dependent upon the integrity of its electronic records management system (its ERMS).

That is the fundamental nature of an electronic record — it is dependent for everything on its electronic records system.

You have asserted that the accuracy of the electronic record of tracking software bugs and doing «break fixes» is somehow relevant to a discussion of paleo - climatology.

However, parents told us they wanted to have a record of progress to share with their family, friends and child, so we developed a new kind of electronic record using Book Creator.

These interviews and posts will become part of the electronic record.

Also, as of 2006, any type of electronic records, including e-mail, can be used as evidence in federal lawsuits.

We also just did a survey and found out one of the highest sources of dissatisfaction with doctors is their use of electronic records.

The good part is that, with this regulation, the FDA has essentially enabled the Life Science community and other FDA regulated industries to streamline business processes, reduce turnaround time and costs, all by establishing standard criteria for the use of electronic records and signatures.

You may withdraw consent for electronic delivery of our legal disclosures, agreements, instructions, and communications, but doing so will not affect the legal effectiveness, validity or enforceability of electronic records that were made available to you prior to the implementation of your withdrawal of consent for electronic delivery.

You also need to review and agree to LightStream's disclosures regarding the use of electronic records.

Data: The data used in this study represent the interrogation of the electronic records of 90,004 unique dogs examined at the University of California — Davis Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital from January 1, 1995 through January 1, 2010.

Sedona Canada does not analyze: (1) the meaning and consequences of the «system integrity concept» in the e-records provisions of the Evidence Acts — proof of «records integrity» requires proof of «records system integrity»; (2) the National Standard of Canada for e-records management, Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 («72.34»); and, (3) the need of the parties to exchange verifications of compliance, provided by records management experts, of their electronic records management systems (ERMS's) with the national standard.

Therefore it can be used to test the «integrity» that provisions such as, s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act (OEA), require of ERMSs, for the purpose of determining the admissibility of electronic records as evidence; e.g., R. v. Oler, 2014 ABPC 130.

Ken Chasse, who recently commented on my last note on e-evidence under the Canada Evidence Act (as reported here on Slaw.ca), thinks that hearsay as well needs adjustment because of the malleability of electronic records.

And it ignores the requirement in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts that admissibility of electronic records requires proof of the «integrity of the electronic records system» in which the records are stored.

However, there 2 other cases in which the state of electronic records management was provided, prior to admitting electronically - produced records as evidence.

When 72.34 (2d) becomes an NSC, we can all oppose the production at discovery, and use of electronic records as admissible evidence, on the grounds that the ERMSs that produced them have not been certified as being in compliance with any authoritative ERMS standard.

And s. 31.5 CEA, and s. 34.1 (8) OEA, state that NSCs may be used in determining the admissibility of electronic records in accordance with the «systems integrity» concept set out in s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA, and 34.1 (5), (5.1) OEA, i.e., the integrity of an electronic record depends upon proof of the integrity of ERMS by or in which the electronic record was recorded or stored.

There is some debate in the evidence world whether the laws of hearsay require amendment because of electronic records.

Therefore I resigned from the project, as did the other lawyer - member of the Working Group specialized in the use of electronic records as evidence.

However, the Principles are not intended to place significant focus on records management (RM) or the importance or desirability of appropriate RM practices so as to be properly prepared for litigation, or on issues related to the integrity of information systems under Evidence Acts, or on the substantive law related to the admissibility of electronic records into evidence.

That is the «system integrity» concept of records reliability, i.e., «records integrity» requires proof «records systems integrity,» which is the admissibility rule of the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts (e.g., s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and s. 34.1 (5), (5.1) of the Ontario Evidence Act).

People can not deal with their legal problems without the help of lawyers because, the law is now too voluminous, complex, often based upon technology that must be understood, and requiring one to cope with the large volumes of electronic records made possible by the great automating power of electronic records technology (being the very technology that has created the prohibitively high cost of electronic discovery proceedings).

As a result, the amendments to the Rules dealing with electronic filing and electronic records should be read as enabling, in the sense that they allow electronic filing and the use of electronic records by the parties as and when the Service acquires the capacity to give full effect to those amendments.

This article is about the poorly drafted proposed 2nd edition of a National Standard of Canada, which the Evidence Acts make necessary for discovery and admissibility proceedings concerning the use of electronic records as evidence.

In regard to best evidence rule issues, admissibility of electronic records requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the electronic records management systems (ERMSs) in which the records are recorded or stored; see for example: Canada Evidence Act (CEA) s. 31.2 (1)(a); Ontario Evidence Act (OEA) s. 34.1 (5), (5.1); Alberta Evidence Act s. 41.4 (1), (2); and the, Nova Scotia Evidence Act s. 23D (1).

Electronic records management is a complex technology, which makes current legal infrastructure of statutes, guidelines, and case law that controls the use of electronic records as evidence very inadequate because it ignores these facts: (1) electronic records technology, and pre-electronic paper records technology are very different technologies — each requires its own unique legal infrastructure; (2) the many serious defects frequently found in electronic records management systems (ERMS's), and... [more]

But the phrase in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts, «the integrity of the electronic records [or documents] system,» requires an authoritative national standard to give it a sufficiently precise meaning to be workable — e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act, and the reference to the use of standards in s. 31.5.

See these articles (pdf): (1) «Admissibility of Electronic Records Requires Proof of Records Management System Integrity»; (2) «The Sedona Canada Principles are Very Inadequate on Records Management and for Electronic Discovery»; (3) «A Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems»; (4) «Electronic Records as Evidence»; and, (5) «Solving the High Cost of the «Review» Stage of Electronic Discovery».

It treats good records management as being merely, «helpful but optional,» instead of mandatory and essential to the effectiveness of discovery and admissibility proceedings concerning the use of electronic records as evidence.

In regard to best evidence rule issues, admissibility of electronic records requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the electronic records management systems (ERMSs) in which the records are recorded or stored; see... [more]

In fact the wordings of the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts declare the law to be that they are very different technologies.

And worse, the drafting committee of the 2nd edition of the «Sedona Canada Principles — Addressing Electronic Discovery,» will not compensate for the impact of the change (from pre-electronic paper records technology, to electronic records management technology) upon the efficacy of all laws concerning the use of electronic records as evidence.

There should be a general rule regarding records in electronic form that gives the Law Society the discretion to accept copies of those electronic records in paper or another form;

Therefore an investigation of the quality of electronic records management is mandatory.

And therefore, how can the Sedona Canada Principles — Addressing Electronic Discovery be an adequate text, given that it completely ignores the importance of electronic records management, and the critical dependence on an electronic record upon its ERMS, and also the provisions of the Evidence Acts?

An electronic record (an e-record) is merely an electronic impression upon an electronic storage device, which is but a part of an electronic records management system (an ERMS).

Electronic discovery can not produce fair and accurate results unless the quality of the electronic records management is investigated.

In some cases, we can't determine whether a party has complied with the obligation to make proper disclosure of electronic records unless one knows the parameters of the storage system, including the indexing and retrieval routines.

The following three analogies should be the foundation concepts for all that is written and said about the discovery and admissibility of electronic records: