MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
have been an additional insure you generally is i mean i'm not i don't claim to be an expert i mean and insurance but don't you carve out a portion of the risk that is being covered for the need insured to cover the additional issue if you don't give them the sea coverage but the coverage for the additional insurance has to be based on the coverage for the named insured we don't take the name insurance aren't given what is what one might be seen as a totally separate allege simultaneous ownership of the gas station as a trial court noted i would not believe that that triggers coverage under the endorsement because you look at the actual allegations involving point there's direct negligence alleged against that that's a separate question i understand you sucks which means that the language in those pots is different the language in this that is true yes but there's no face no noise to the extent that a language is different what you're really saying is that we met to provide coverage just the way we did on these other cases in this case even know we're not using the same language eventually get sorted out down the line we're not going to penalize an additional insurance based on language used by the underlying who owns the gas station or at least they claim they don't know it and they've made the identical allegations against something they did and shell will right again it's a lie but they also did not include piece where an insurance company has actually insured justice that ensures vicarious liability in a general contractor sub contractor relationship insured vicarious want to deal with them why anybody would ever want to buy that sort of thing he says it's almost like a negligent entrustment sort of action where they should never granted this branch i z the franchise up the nature of the relationship between the parties because that sort of makes clear the sort of risk that's being covered well i mean there's something in there like a plane that identifies the relationship between the part but the plane of probably the least knowledgeable like that really if he just knows that he got hurt he's trying to identify as many possible persons that might have been responsible for his injury right you know and you also have some insurance usually exclusive doesn't the very notion of having to usually the safety to seek reversal of the trial to at the very least and the allegations in the complaint alleges said that mean and if there's no risk there's no need for insurance but if the insurance is provided it's because there's a risk out there and needs to be
he didn't want to make the defendants nervous but once he found it on he immediately stepped outside made eye contact with savion l and made a motion for him to rest and calm the defendant so there was the better it's clear that there was no asking about whe you're basically are you going because there is no testimony about it that it exists right that's correct sure however i believe the testimony is sufficient to establish that it did not exist again because the time frame gun in public it's the media in which he possesses that weapon or the hotel room the circumstances suspicious to give me indication that the possession of the gun is not the awful in this case the facts are clear
any doubt about the competence of the outcome the testing procedures were bad the officer is available for cross examination the state trooper came in talked about the testing procedures for the machine so there is no question as to whether or not
is not recorded
and if you would agree with the plaintiff argue this particular case that the two dash one of mine is not raise or it isn't part of this case was name and his the court said it contrary decision or believe following the plaintiff decision would later circumventing both actions and that is not what the basis of the of public or the get out because there is nothing here for him to look at and they require him to get out so the facts of the case that is the driver pointed out as far as the three dash one or two the second is that the pla knowledge on the county at any distance of any condition in this roadway prior to this accident and matter fact it cited grief counselor the plaintiff agreed with the court that at the time of the media can be confusing and i practice it quite intently extensively sometimes these sections kind of intertwine and seem to contradict each other but do because we knew the time of the trial that the county engineer was looking at there was heavy traffic on this road he was considering what to do what to do if anything and matter of fact in response to the court's question that's why i wrote two days before the perception of the public needs and i think that the evidence in this case is to focus on there was no evidence at the core of the case of lack of evidence that there was any knowledge of this county marion county that there was a condition in their roadway that would cause a problem to that the county engineer has immunity because it was his decision as to how to take care o and when to take care of it and i think
report so how many of your argument consistent with that direction if it doesn't specify the weight that has to be given to how could it be the primary factor as a kind of evidence and first i say there is no issue of law there is no need to reach for it this statute because this is not a case of first impression as you mentioned the continental tire petitions permanent partial disability may be larger than individual who performed lawyer work with regards to number three and shares buying may have to live in work with a disability for a longer time than an older individual with the same injuries
not that kind of emergency then they send it out for good and then they submit the bill then they get the deadline so they know how quick it was they didn't do this on that particular basis so in response to the comments that were being made
yours this was a basically a single finger identification case the jury found him guilty there are three issues i raised in the brief and i want to deal mainly at least starting with the rd issue which is the issue reasonable fear that the defendant might be dangerous which of course the jury best concluding or thinking about the defendant being dangerous before they ever actually that's and really sure that you were the one that brought after witness was afraid and number two that the defendant was dangerous because they didn't think that offender was dangerous and would then be concerned for their safety so let's to liberations reaching conclusions about the defendant being dangerous and definition his it the background question which is whether they began premature  discretion and i'm trying to really get it with you if you're here right now and not see that's not the question that was that that the judge missed was responding to them i question to you is whether or not the test was responding to your question same question is the same way vastly different ways of asking the same question did you begin deliberations did you bury my instruction not to and then asked him to ask it was actually more favorable to the position that they had because they would be to instruction not to begin deliberations or discuss the case among themselves and would be held at the course response i disagree completely and i will tell you why that gets into the long standing right cases regarding impeachment of j
their persecution which is kind of future persecution but i was just wondering i don't see i don't see a challenge to the finding that there was no  which i guess we're supposed to take as credible that these gangs are working for the opposing party and they're not only saying i want ten thousand dollars they're also saying what work is the party  was i couldn't gather there i was i told him i couldn't get out of the big amount of money and he told me i don't know how you're going to do it and they said what do you need to change garrett i mean you work with or he was always in your party there are millionaires and i said i didn't work for him and the money that he gives is not for me they know the person has and they certainly knew that they were members of the arena party they were calling them millionaires they were saying that they have money they knew they could get money so the fact that they would be intimidated or numb uncertain cook characteristics that they knew they had it may be indicative of a potential political motive but the immigration judge said well i have that evidence but i also have evidence here that nobody else in the town who worked for the river party was suffering the same type of persecution where there were other higher ranking members other people involved construction of the i think the immigration judge explained that the evidence was too scant to make that inference and i can see that a different reasonable backfire might reach different conclusion they might look at this and say i think there is enough here to infer that there was a political motivation persecuted throughout the entire in themselves or in fact it's a political party that has a great deal of a significant amount of influence and power in the country so the notion that you wouldn't be able to go anywhere in the country is not supported by the other evidence in addition to the specific evidence that he was able to run from the country i would also point out that even though they were claiming that they are stuck in the house he made the grandfathered in multiple returns so this is not just one return i'm going to return in two thousand grandfather to relocate his multiple return to the country so it's not a situation where there's really a gallon proof it's really the country it is doesn't suggest that arena party members are persecuted rather country and you have a specific instances of the family being able to return and
reversal here are you up raise it in terms of and a future discretion but in a piece of discretion can happen a lot of different way it and i think if you're looking for to her reversal you need to show more than simply would have to show prejudice or not yes i think we do have to and we are in your brief did you argue that prejudice standard expectation to physician i don't think any of us with deny that the issue here is that it takes remember sure there was no test you say that probably mean that proximate causes not shown and that the standard of care was not shown in a in a way you're saying that you want to give them a second chance at proving their case by remaining for a new trial quit with you on the second issue what remedy could we  plainest favor and one of which would be sufficient to uphold that general verdict and only one of those theories connected to the violation of the standard of care with the financial incentive the others were concerned unnecessary or all right that's the verdict but let's go let's go to the financial evidence of her issue and it seems to me that you are lying and case law that says that you know certainly unnecessary surgery may constitute medical malpractise right and certainly there's case law that says financial incentive may be admissible to show bites and yet it seems to me that this is a case where you're connecting those two lines of cases and seeking to procedure conceded that this issue is out there it is the fit within the medical community this is not an m r i and you're either asked the question did anybody say that the results of th didn't indicate well we don't know the answer to that specific and the question is the question becomes then what is what does that a financial incentive really have to do with the standard of care if the standard of care doesn't say it would treatments that make in the long run end up benefiting everyone because but it doesn't necessarily mean because there's controversy or there's criticism that the state that the procedure followed by a particular doctor that might be not be he had no point the schedule there's no evidence he was ever sort did you did you found motion eliminate a bar of that sort of evidence from introducing fellow for the future medical expenses in light of his la
component there's a dispute about the law and there's a factual component there's a dispute about the fact that if there is no dispute about the law it is all that remains is a factual issue that it seems to me from what i can see here is what this case is that no one is arguing that so far as i can tell and that that was a legal mis interpretation of the requirements of the notice statute but rather the question is one of whether there was actual compliance with those requirements in this case which seems much more factual than legal in the nature given these historical facts would a person understand that that person and an ordinary veteran understand that this is the devise the information that the statute requires isn't that really what is that issue in
and the first is numbers thirteen days twenty seven twenty eight twenty eighty nine twenty ninety thirty two nineteen as well as fourteen dash twelve thirty five seventeen fifty  this case is one which illinois substantive law has to go over because it's a statute of limitations issue and it's a diversity case so  columns i guess he was guiding us the latest he was diagnosed on june fifth about seven is that correct rougher ah yes small cell carcinoma of the long and b that was first disclosed cases like to say we're not active and we're not my for head at bat time in two thousand and nine which i believe is when my firm's cases got activated there was years after diagnosis how are these in the statute there is in the statute of limitations because from the date of the causation letters connecting the lung cancer to asbestos exposure diagnosis and cause of connection as you know so in this case the lead the latter was in the there isn't the time that you heard of the clock starting on a stash limitation is when you know you want an injured you knew you were injured when you get a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma but it doesn't establish the causal connection that has to come from a medical doctor ok and so when you think it should be so you had a medical doctor to tell those you that there was a logical nexus between the cancer diagnosis and he also there was a causation letter that was filed which was the one that was originally provided to my on june fifteenth of two thousand not so that was provided to the fences notice in november of two thousand and ten and so are you by relation back because by federal roof fifteen relation back issues are set forth as state law matters governed specifically by state law alice will hear different  o in which there was a brand new cause of action alleged we cited the castro case in which there was a defendant that was added these were all things that were done after the statute of causes of action among other things a wrongful death action you have a diagnosis of cancer which you know under illinois law is a separate injury wouldn't you want to get a and you say what i need is a doctor to tell me that diagnosis isn't that enough to trigger that high from within which you have to make your allegations concerning these injuries and that's the real answer there is usually not deadline so i just i don't see it let me go back to the first question where you were quiet to amend the complaint and would you agree that the two disease ruling will in the way would require an amendment of the complaint to add to  this the lung cancer claims i would agree that it's required no i would agree only that that cell says new cause of action and if and if there is a need to allege the new cause of action and if you look at the illinois rule that there is no requirement under illinois law would deal with illinois law that says you would have to amend that's what's missing here in terms of part of this case that would have required my for him to know something there is no such requirement
and several liability has under these circumstances now the magistrate challenge believes that this case was most analogous to the worker ballot when a judgment is paid off and releases are caravan but here we understand but no release was ever given that the plaintiffs accepted payment from the correct o t clear that the ability of the employer could not be undone by a competition action but it to roll have to go from that proposition to the proposition that because those decisions are now seem to be linked to anything could true about worker's compensation law that's at least suggests that if we were going to try to predict what the if we can make that prediction with a reasonable degree of confidence what was struggling with here is that this is a highly nuanced issue the right good arguments on both sides and so far as we can or at least so far as i can ascertain there is no puerto rico supreme court precedent either directly on point or more which indicates with persuasive force which way th jurisdictions we are and person making policy decisions for puerto rico which is unusual in that it has a spanish law heritage as well as the common law heritage and i've been through the cases i understand your argument scientists and their arguments but the legislature here apparently has not faced the question the same supreme court of proto rico has not faced the question it's perfectly appropriate to say that these are significant policy choice this right by by pointing out that there is no meaningful difference between and workers compensations b s so on that point i would reverse because i think there is quite a meaningful difference the panel may well have different views on this but i don't see why the workers compensation scheme should be analogized to this  is this general principle followed by the supreme court of puerto rico in the worker's comp cases and the release of insurance more fees a case that ne the basic premise the underlying premise accuse a who's broke and here it's more than theoretical because at least you can get something by way of a contribution because we have the capitol's you just can't get everything so i'm not i'm should do i appreciate your concession that the court could of course certify to the puerto rican supreme court i would assume that if that was the case that the sadness to the party is without predicting the outcome of the case each of you will have twenty days to make a side elemental questions that you think should be certified and actually if you two wouldn't want talking to each other at the agreed upon questions are always welcome  scientific opinion he did not construct and test his alternative design to determine whether it could withstand the force of the crash and prevent in or a study or calculation that shows that his alternative design would have prevented the injury that occurred that his alternative design would have performed five minutes or would you rather have you know you  the state of the art for many many years he was proposing something that had never been used before i guess has had never been tested before and although he did do i guess mathematical
what we're talking about for th
ok good afternoon everyone we have two cases here this afternoon we'll get started with the first one first case which is guys a good community medical center versus even she doesn't like the directive and decided to go into a different direction in terms of the direction and with all these cases the direction is clear from the courts and chevron and this let's focus on the one with a statute first and in that language we had the wor within the medical staff system does it not correct ok and we're talking only about the scranton facility we're talking about just this particular facility and just this facility not any other correct aspects of the medical system itself correct ok so code it took a forty pages or so in the appendix that section date and the question is if congress can look at that large chunk of material they want this change to apply to all of that and use that appropriate language which we did for  particular way so yes there was this question and there is still some discretion but that discretion is limited by section four or run i'm scratching my head over the once actually wrote i'm sure a lot of sections secretary wants it and all other hospitals do so that she may enact on some provisions that allow them to as well so we have that section that discretionary we have adult another session that specifically references discretion and that's in terms of the makes everything in subsection be applicable to a hospital who seeks world one group designation that's essentially what you're arguing if it's a clear right why should we be looking at legislat have left him with a loophole and that's a word gets a little bit different than clarity and ambiguity i mean big u s but a loophole and i'm an urban hospital disadvantaged by my urban location and so i'd like to become worl and then turn around and say i'm now disadvantaged by that role status that i voluntarily acquired and i would now like an urban can't can't figure out necessarily what congress was looking at when they drafted for a one off but yes a few graphic regions here that you know it's look as someone might look at them on the map which they can come to and get some of the allentown where if they get that wage and decks they get more of the reimbursement and therefore with more reimbursement they should be able to attract their employees to honor that would be that a state plausible interpretation of what congress might have in time but here it is not the only possible reading and in fact there is any order that allows are some distinctions for example there are certain capital you costs that we're all hospitals and that is reimbursed as other hospitals there are things related to value based approaches saying different things that are
sure clerk or your secretary who never was and i remember correctly that she tried to send it first with a document attached and then it came back and then what was it that she had to get up her legal i have been trained in the winnebago process a use that many times before and there's no reason that i can think the record establishes that she lacked training or skill tire yeah i don't leave enough time i didn't plan ahead sure well lisa good to see you let's assume for the sake of argument this is a published opinion and we say for all over everybody out there this deputy clerk of us who i have no quarrel with but how does the playing to get beyond that are we going to say well if the plaintiff has the burglar or the moving party to hear the plane has the power to show all that there was a technical failure on your part are we going to get into discovery are we going to start allowing that moving party to get up some of the clerks records for their day to show hate no you don't work there was a glitch at ten o'clock there was a glitch it four thirty that day so therefore it's more likely it was that you see where i'm going with this yes i think we're where do we go i mean to respectfully i'm pretty sure the clerk so is going to say our system i to file god bless it was working perfectly back at that time how does the plaintiff ever prove that the issue was not on my end but the issue was on your end  disclosure why wouldn't we allow the plane to take depositions of anyone who might have been in charge of it or to get the records for example that you reviewed hand them over and let the plaintiff have another expert brings back again doors unlocked under that scenario we might consider dead a little differently yes now what principle where prevents us from considering this in a similar fashion it is one of the things we want to take into consideration good this is all new and everybody's doing the best that they can to try to sort all this stuff out and to get through this i wouldn't say computers are new to everybody but this particular that with the initiation that is to open a file for example the paper will file a case number on it nothing in it if that was not the case you this was an ongoing case there was already a