alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
493 P.2d 416

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew K. PATTON, Lyle V. Moody, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 731.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Jan. 7, 1972.

*451George P. Jones, III, Albuquerque, for Andrew K. Patton.

Douglas T. Francis, Albuquerque, for Lyle V. Moody.

David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., James B. Mulcock, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

Under Rule 93, § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4), Patton and Moody sought to vacate a prior judgment and sentence upon conviction for armed robbery with a sawed-off shotgun. This court granted them the right to a hearing on the motion in the trial court. State v. Patton, 82 N.M. 29, 474 P.2d 711 (Ct.App.1970).

The trial court found that in July, 1967, after the arrest, Patton and Moody each gave a written statement to members of the Albuquerque Police Department. Each consulted with his attorney, was competently and effectively represented, and voluntarily pleaded guilty without promises or threats while knowing the consequences thereof. These findings are supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the plea of guilty is binding. State v. Robbins, 77 N.M. 644, 427 P.2d 10 (1967). Although Patton, answering interrogatories by the court, stated that he did not plead guilty with full knowledge of the consequences, his answer was not conclusive. The record shows that Patton was fully advised by his counsel. State v. Elledge, 81 N.M. 18, 462 P.2d 152 (Ct.App.1969).

The foregoing disposes of Moody’s claim that his plea was involuntary and Patton’s claim that his plea resulted from threats and promises and was made without an understanding of the consequences.

The claim of both defendants that they did not have effective assistance of counsel is answered by State v. Wilson, 82 N.M. 142, 477 P.2d 318 (Ct.App.1970). Patton’s claim that he made an incriminating statement in a manner that violated his constitutional rights and induced his plea is answered by Burton v. State, 82 N.M. 328, 481 P.2d 407 (1971). Patton’s claim that he should have been proceeded against by information rather than by indictment is answered by New Mexico Constitution, Art. II, § 14 and State v. Mosley, 79 N.M. 514, 445 P.2d 391 (Ct.App.1968).

Finally, Moody’s claim that he was prejudiced because a portion of the record in his case was missing, is also without merit. The missing portion of the record is a hearing on the issue of reduction in bond and a hearing concerning change of coun*452sel. Moody makes no effort to show how he was prejudiced. See State v. Brill, 81 N.M. 785, 474 P.2d 77 (Ct.App.1970). No “colorable need” for the missing records is shown. See Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 92 S.Ct. 410, 30 L.Ed.2d 372 (1971).

Affirmed.

WOOD, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 123.31

 123.17

 123.47

 123.65

 124.00

 124.25

 124.25

 123.97

 123.98

 123.88

 124.35

 123.90

 123.69

 123.69

 123.70

 123.98

 123.70

 124.09

 124.31

 124.25

 124.05

 124.37

 124.02

 123.85

 123.77

 123.98

 124.11

 124.21

 123.94

 123.80

 123.98

 7,937

 7,871

 8,012

 8,097

 8,261

 8,386

 8,386

 8,247

 8,252

 8,205

 8,436

 8,214

 8,115

 8,115

 8,120

 8,252

 8,120

 8,306

 8,416

 8,386

 8,286

 8,446

 8,271

 8,191

 8,153

 8,252

 8,316

 8,366

 8,233

 8,167

 8,252

STORAGE

-291

-66

+141

+85

+164

+125

+0

-139

+5

-47

+231

-222

-99

+0

+5

+132

-132

+186

+110

-30

-100

+160

-175

-80

-38

+99

+64

+50

-133

-66

+85

CHANGE

2,896

3,020

3,130

3,102

3,142

3,122

3,063

2,988

3,058

3,498

3,662

3,395

3,489

3,545

3,509

3,615

3,514

3,680

3,640

3,571

3,537

3,666

3,495

3,546

3,180

2,716

2,599

2,606

2,512

2,543

2,621

INFLOW

 2,932

 2,942

 2,944

 2,944

 2,944

 2,944

 2,948

 2,944

 2,941

 3,411

 3,442

 3,232

 3,434

 3,266

 2,275

 2,821

 3,472

 3,471

 3,470

 3,471

 3,472

 3,470

 3,469

 3,471

 3,085

 2,552

 2,452

 2,466

 2,464

 2,462

 2,464

POWER

 2

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 171

 0

 174

 1,126

 623

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

HATCHERY

 4

 4

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 4

 4

 4

 4

 4

 5

 5

 5

 4

 4

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 4

 5

 4

 4

 5

 5

 5

 4

 4

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2004 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: August 23, 2004

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +24 99,660 94,075 2,096 1,860 141

ACRE-FEET +24 197,676 186,598 4,157 3,689 280

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 186,598

SPILL 4,157

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 2,924

 3,689

 8,228

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 45

 47

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 47

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 45

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 1,474

 2,924

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 197,368

Table 12
### §7545. Administrative provisions

Not more than 5 percent of funds provided to an award recipient under this part for any fiscal year may be used for administrative purposes.

(Pub. L. 89–10, title VI, §6305, formerly title VII, §7305, as added Pub. L. 107–110, title VII, §701, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1946; renumbered title VI, §6305, and amended Pub. L. 114–95, title VI, §§6001(a), (b)(1), 6004(d), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2046, 2071.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7545, Pub. L. 89–10, title VII, §7305, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3741, related to State applications, prior to the general amendment of former subchapter VII of this chapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

#### Amendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–95, §6004(d), amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section set out various administrative provisions relating to applications for grants and awards under this part, consisting of subsecs. (a) to (d).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–95 effective Dec. 10, 2015, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 114–95, set out as a note under section 6301 of this title.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 619

 631

 1,432

 2,407

 7,027

 7,809

 4,719

 5,890

 10,477

 6,066

 3,825

 3,577

 3,148

 2,400

 2,775

 2,116

 4,244

 6,973

 10,563

 13,838

 14,717

 15,221

 17,990

 19,887

 14,672

 14,716

 13,227

 8,978

 385

 365

 350

 354

 345

 357

 315

 304

 317

 311

 322

 314

 319

 309

 304

 321

 332

 356

 480

 734

 439

 395

 749

 2,505

 1,528

 2,821

 1,802

 1,114

 474

 461

 508

 683

 1,710

 2,153

 1,103

 1,052

 2,307

 1,356

 768

 763

 682

 577

 633

 708

 1,321

 2,671

 3,888

 4,996

 5,386

 6,468

 8,289

 11,005

 8,063

 8,008

 7,423

 5,417

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 3, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
#### § 10.526 Must the employee report volunteer activities?

An employee who is receiving compensation for partial or total disability is periodically required to report volunteer activity or any other kind of activity which shows that the employee is no longer totally disabled for work. The fact that the employee did not receive any salary for this work is not a basis for failing to report this activity; instead the employee must report the cost if any to have someone else do the work or activity.
496 P.2d 169

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar ROGERS, also *known as Joe Baker,*Defendant-Appellant.

No. 818.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

April 7, 1972.

■ Harvey C. Markley, Lovington, for defendant-appellant.

David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Thomas Patrick Whelan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

Rogers was charged, convicted and sentenced for burglary contrary to § 40A-16-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1971). Rogers appeals.

We, reverse.

■ Section 40A-16-3, supra, reads in part as follows: •

> Burglary consists of the unauthorized entry of any * * * structure, * * * with the intent to commit any felony or theft therein.

On April 8, 1971, at 8:30 p. m., Rogers drove into Jim’s Conoco Station in Hobbs, New Mexico, walked into the office and asked for a crescent wrench t.o use to take off a battery. The attendant told him that tools were not lent unless a dollar was deposited. Rogers did not have a dollar. The attendant went out of the office to service a customer and returned to the office. Rogers viewed the attendant opening the cash register. While the attendant serviced another car, Rogers remained in the office. Suddenly, the attendant ran inside. The cash register was open, all of the paper money, about $30 or $35, was gone. The attendant asked Rogers to put the money back, and Rogers said “no.”

The trial court instructed the jury that, the material allegations of the charge of burglary were:

> 1. That the defendant, without authority, did enter a structure, to-wit: Jim’s Conoco Station, Hobbs, New Mexico.

> *677' 2. That the defendant entered such-structure with the intent to commit a theft therein.

> 3. That said act or acts were committed by the defendant knowingly, unlawfully ■ and feloniously. .

• This instruction became the law of this case. State v. Rayos, *77*N.M. 204, 420 P.2d 314 (1967). It should be noted that three essential ingredients exist. We are concerned only with the first.

There "was no evidence that Rogers’ entered the Conoco structure “without authority.” This was a business which invited the public to enter so that permission or consent of the owner is implied. Rogers’ entry was authorized. The criminal offense committed thereafter was not burglary. A person who enters a store open to’the public with intent to shoplift [§ 40A-16-20, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1971)], or- commit larceny. [§ 40A-16-1], is not guilty of burglary. Intent at the time of a permissible entry is not the sole element of burglary under the statute. People v. Carstensen, 161 Colo. 249, 420 P.2d 820 (1966).

Our holding is limited to the charge of burglary and we do not decide whether the facts would sustain a conviction under another criminal charge.

The conviction, judgment and sentence aré reversed, and the cause remanded with' instructions to dismiss the charge against the defendant for -which he was convicted.

It is so ordered.

COWAN, and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.
### §§8851 to 8857. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–110, title X, §1011(5)(C), Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1986

Section 8851, Pub. L. 89–10, title XIV, §14301, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3894, set forth purpose of part.

Section 8852, Pub. L. 89–10, title XIV, §14302, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3894; amended Pub. L. 105–332, §3(c)(3), Oct. 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3125, related to optional consolidated State plans or applications.

Section 8853, Pub. L. 89–10, title XIV, §14303, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3895, related to general applicability of State educational agency assurances.

Section 8854, Pub. L. 89–10, title XIV, §14304, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3896, required report on additional coordination.

Section 8855, Pub. L. 89–10, title XIV, §14305, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3896, related to consolidated local plans or applications.

Section 8856, Pub. L. 89–10, title XIV, §14306, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3897, related to other general assurances.

Section 8857, Pub. L. 89–10, title XIV, §14307, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3898; amended Pub. L. 105–332, §3(c)(4), Oct. 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3126, related to relationship of State and local plans to plans under Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
Exhibit 10.4

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
 ATTEROCOR, INC.
  2012 STOCK PLAN

 

Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (formerly known as Atterocor, Inc.) (the “Company”), previously adopted the Atterocor, Inc. 2012 Stock Plan (as amended, the “Plan”). Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.

 

Section 2, Paragraph (h) of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

(h)                                                         “Company” means Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (formerly known as Atterocor, Inc.).

 

Section 3, Paragraph (a) of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as  follows:

 

(a)                                                         “Subject to the provisions of Section 13 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be subject to option and sold under the Plan is 12,086,451 Shares. In no event shall the number of Shares issued pursuant to Incentive Stock Options exceed 12,086,451 Shares. The Shares may be authorized but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock.”

 

Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.

 

	
Adopted   by the Company’s Board of Directors:
    	
December 17,   2015
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Adopted   by the Company’s Stockholders:
    	
December 17,   2015
    


 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has acknowledged this Amendment to the Plan this 17th day of December, 2015.

 


	
 
    	
 
    	
MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
/s/ Julia Owens
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Print Name:
    	
Julia Owens
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title: 
    	
President and CEO
EXHIBIT 32 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY DWIGHT O.
SEEGMILLER In connection
with the quarterly report of Hills Bancorporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dwight O. Seegmiller,
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that: 1.       The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 2.       The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: 11/7/05
  
  By: /s/ Dwight O. SeegmillerDwight O. Seegmiller, Director and President SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY JAMES G. PRATT In connection
with the quarterly report of Hills Bancorporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James G. Pratt,
Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: 1.       The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 2.       The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: 11/7/05
  
  By: /s/ James G. PrattJames G. Pratt, Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer Page 31 of 31
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 3,868

 7,651

 5,961

 6,031

 6,859

 6,830

 6,679

 812

 204

 4,339

 4,853

 5,266

 5,350

 8,046

 7,864

 6,324

 7,388

 7,707

 4,422

 2,017

 478

 211

 279

 3,011

 4,149

 7,384

 8,321

 9,654

 9,621

 6,788

 8,134

 160

 166

 166

 168

 174

 184

 169

 165

 154

 151

 158

 157

 171

 190

 231

 182

 221

 225

 208

 176

 155

 147

 143

 140

 146

 156

 186

 184

 166

 165

 170

 568

 1,106

 1,028

 1,026

 1,258

 1,250

 1,092

 262

 180

 448

 1,225

 1,021

 1,053

 1,762

 2,056

 1,457

 1,967

 1,925

 922

 441

 230

 177

 164

 329

 637

 1,301

 1,600

 1,857

 1,741

 1,158

 1,273

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2011 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 12, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


EXHIBIT 10.3




EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT




THIS AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into on June 19, 2015 by and between Interinbox, SA, a Swiss corporation (the “Company”); and Nicholas Eckert (“Employee”).  




1.

This Agreement amends that certain Contract of Employment dated September 1, 2012 made and entered into by the parties hereto (the “Employee Agreement”). Capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as used in the Employee Agreement, unless otherwise noted.




2.

The following shall be inserted into Appendix B of the Employee Agreement, which shall read as follows:

 

II.

Quarterly Bonus Compensation: 




Employee shall be eligible for bonus compensation that will be paid on a quarterly basis (the “Quarterly Bonus”) that will be earned and payable as follows: 




The annual bonus target amount is CHF 20,000 (the Quarterly Bonus target amount is CHF 5,000), and will be based on the performance of the executive group and the individual Employee and based upon overall SMTP, Inc. performance. 




The Quarterly Bonus is earned at the close of the applicable quarter and is intended to be paid shortly after SMTP, Inc reports its financials publicly each quarter.




If Employee’s employment is terminated for any reason, Employee shall be paid (a) the full Quarterly Bonus earned, as determined solely by SMTP’s Board of Directors, for the most recently completed quarter and if Employee’s employment is terminated by the Company or by mutual agreement, Employee shall be paid (b) a pro-rated Quarterly Bonus, as determined solely by SMTP’s Board of Directors, for the calendar quarter in which termination occurs.  




3.

All other provisions of the Employee Agreement remain in full force and effect, other than any provision that conflicts with the terms and spirit of this Agreement.




Signature Page Attached

















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date first written above.







				
	 
	 
	INTERINBOX, SA.


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By: 

	/s/ Edward Lawton


	(Witness signature) 

	 
	 
	Edward Lawton


	 
	 
	 
	Director


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	EMPLOYEE


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	/s/ Nicholas Eckert


	(Witness signature)

	 
	Nicholas Eckert
## APPENDIX B. RQ METHODS AND LOCs

The Risk Quotient Method (RQ) is the means us ed by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Fate and Effect s Division (EFED) integrates the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data. For this method, Risk Quotie nts (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by the acute and chronic ecotoxicity values ( i.e. , RQ = EXPOSURE/TOXICITY). These RQs are then compared to OP P's levels of concern (LOCs) (see Table B.1 ). These LOCs are criteria used by OPP to indicate potential risk to non-target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. EFED has defined LOCs for acute risk, potential restricted use classification, and for endangered species.

The criteria indicate that a pest icide used as directed has the pot ential to cause adverse effects on non-target organisms. LOCs currently address the following risk pres umption categories:

(1) Acute - there is a potential for acute risk; regulato ry action may be warra nted in addition to restricted use classification;

(2) Acute restricted use - the potential for acute risk is high, but this may be mitigated through restricted use classification;

(3) Acute endangered species - the potential for acute risk to endangered species is high, regulatory action may be warranted; and

(4) Chronic risk - the potential for chronic risk is hi gh, regulatory action may be warranted.

### Table B.1. Risk Presumptions and LOCs. Risk Presumption RQ LOC Birds Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day (or LD 50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2 Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/NOEC 1 Wild Mammals Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day (or LD 50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2 Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/NOEC 1 Terrestrial Invertebrates Acute Endangered Species EEC/LD 50 0.05 Aquatic Animals Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.05 Chronic Risk EEC/NOEC 1 Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants Acute Risk EEC/EC 25 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC 05 or NOEC 1 Aquatic Plants Acute Risk EEC/EC 50 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC 05 or NOEC 1
§ 220.62 Reviewing reports of consultative examinations. ( a ) The Board will review the report of the consultative examination to determine whether the specific information requested has been furnished. The Board will consider these factors in reviewing the report: ( 1 ) Whether the report provides evidence which serves as an adequate basis for decision-making in terms of the impairment it assesses.
( 2 ) Whether the report is internally consistent. Whether all the diseases, impairments and complaints described in the history are adequately assessed and reported in the physical findings. Whether the conclusions correlate the findings from the claimant's medical history, physical examination and laboratory tests and explain all abnormalities.
( 3 ) Whether the report is consistent with the other information available to the Board within the specialty of the examination requested. Whether the report fails to mention an important or relevant complaint within the speciality that is noted on other evidence in the file (e.g., blindness in one eye, amputations, flail limbs or claw hands, etc.).
( 4 ) Whether the report is properly signed.
( b ) If the report is inadequate or incomplete, the Board will contact the examining consultative physician or psychologist, give an explanation of the Board's evidentiary needs, and ask that the physician or psychologist furnish the missing information or prepare a revised report.
( c ) Where the examination discloses new diagnostic information or test results which are significant to the claimant's treatment, the Board will consider referral of the consultative examination report to the claimant's treating physician or psychologist.
( d ) The Board will take steps to ensure that consultative examinations are scheduled only with medical sources who have the equipment required to provide an adequate assessment and record of the level of severity of the claimant's alleged impairments.