Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): child abuse coincides with the appropriate measures that child protective services employees acting pursuant to § 424 are supposed to undertake. Section 424 provides, in relevant part, that if “the child protective service ... determines that the best interest of the child require[s] family court or criminal court action, [it could] initiate the appropriate family court proceeding or make a referral to the appropriate district attorney, or both.” Under the SSL, conclusive proof of child abuse is not a requisite threshold to trigger reporting under § 424. See Isabelle V. v. City of New York, 150 A.D.2d 312, 541 N.Y.S.2d 809, 809 (App.Div.1st Dep’t 1989); see also Kempster v. Child Protective Services of the County of Suffolk, 130 A.D.2d 623, 515 N.Y.S.2d 807, 809 (App.Div.2d Dep’t 1987)(<HOLDING>). In Isabelle, hospital employees, pursuant to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that compliance with fda requirements though admissible to demonstrate lack of negligence is not conclusive on this issue just as violation of fda requirements is evidence but not conclusive evidence of negligence (B) holding that reporting requirements that are afforded immunity under  419 are not predicated on actual or conclusive evidence of abuse or maltreatment (C) holding that the substantive provisions and reporting requirements of an unclaimed property law are valid as applied to national banks (D) holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity (E) holding that trial courts resolution of disputed facts are conclusive on appeal when supported by substantial evidence
Output (English): holding that compliance with fda requirements though admissible to demonstrate lack of negligence is not conclusive on this issue just as violation of fda requirements is evidence but not conclusive evidence of negligence