alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7385. Offset for certain payments

A payment of compensation to an individual, or to a survivor of that individual, under this subchapter shall be offset by the amount of any payment made pursuant to a final award or settlement on a claim (other than a claim for worker's compensation), against any person, that is based on injuries incurred by that individual on account of the exposure for which compensation is payable under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXVI, §3641], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–509; Pub. L. 108–375, div. C, title XXXI, §3162(a), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2186.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–375 substituted "this subchapter" for "part B" and "on account of the exposure for which compensation is payable under this subchapter" for "on account of the exposure of a covered beryllium employee, covered employee with cancer, covered employee with chronic silicosis (as defined in section 7384r of this title), or covered uranium employee (as defined in section 7384u of this title), while so employed, to beryllium, radiation, silica, or radiation, respectively".
#### Guillio D’Antonio et al., Respondents, v. Arthur Fitzgerald, Appellant.

— In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 24, 1960, which grants plaintiffs’ motion to direct defendant to accept service of plaintiffs’ late bill of particulars, and which in effect opens plaintiffs’ default in having failed to serve said bill by May 9, 1959, pursuant to an order of said court entered by consent of the parties on March 6, 1959. Under the latter order plaintiffs were precluded from offering evidence upon the trial with respect to matters as to which a bill of particulars had been demanded, unless plaintiffs served the bill within 60 days after service of a copy of said order — a copy having been duly served on March 10, 1959. Order dated February 24, 1960 reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs, without prejudice to renewal upon proper affidavits reciting *facts*showing a meritorious cause of action and a meritorious excuse for plaintiffs’ failure to serve the bill of particulars in accordance, with the terms of the preclusion order of March 6, 1959. The present record [furnishes] a wholly inadequate basis for the exercise of the court’s discretion in opening plaintiffs’ default under the preclusion order. No *facts*are set forth establishing an excusable default for plaintiffs’ inordinate delay in serving the bill of particulars. Nor are any *facts set*forth showing the merits' of the action. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3089 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3089

   To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-bis(4-Aminophenoxy)benzene 
                                (RODA).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2005

  Mr. Hobson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-bis(4-Aminophenoxy)benzene 
                                (RODA).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.15 of subchapter II of chapter 99 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, relating to 
1,3-bis(4-aminophenoxy)benzene (CAS # 2479-46-1) is amended by striking 
12/31/2006 and inserting 12/31/2009.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Fact Sheet

SOCIAL SECURITY 

SSA Press Office 440 Altmeyer Building 6401 Security Blvd. Baltimore, MD 21235 410-965-8904 FAX 410-966-9973 

Social Security Is Important to Young People 

This Fact Sheet is provided by the Social Security Administration to highlight how young workers benefit 

from the Social Security program and how certain demographic characteristics of young workers compare 

with the entire population.

Social Security is much more than a retirement program.

• About one in six Americans (50.4 million) receives a Social Security benefit today. Almost two in five (37 

percent) are not retired workers. Social Security provides benefits to young workers and their families if 

they become disabled, and it provides benefits to the survivors of deceased workers, including their 

children. 

o Retired workers and their dependents account for 69% of beneficiaries. 

o Disabled workers and their dependents account for 18% of beneficiaries. 

o Survivors of deceased workers account for 13% of beneficiaries. 

Social Security protects young workers.

• About 91 percent of persons aged 21-64 who worked in covered employment in 2007 can count on monthly 

cash benefits if they suffer a severe and prolonged disability. 

• About 97 percent of persons aged 20-49 who worked in covered employment in 2007 have acquired 

survivorship protection for their children under age 18 (and surviving spouses caring for children under age 

16). 

Social Security protects young people even before they've obtained protection based on their own work. 

• About 3.1 million young people under age 18 were receiving Social Security benefits at the end of 2006. 

The average monthly benefit was $464. 

o Approximately 282,281 minor children of retired workers were receiving an average monthly 

benefit of $ 490. 

o Just over 1.3 million minor children of deceased workers were receiving an average monthly 

survivor benefit of $ 671. 

o Just over 1.5 million minor children of disabled workers were receiving an average monthly benefit 

of $ 281. 
• By the end of 2006, about 130,500 students ages 18 and 19 were receiving an average monthly benefit of 

$596. 

• Approximately 776,600 disabled adult children, disabled individuals age 18 and older who are receiving 

benefits on a parent's work record, were receiving an average monthly benefit of $642 at the end of 2006.
### §485d. Time of payments to the United States

The Secretary in this discretion may require, in connection with any contract entered into pursuant to the authority of this subchapter, that the contract provide (1) that the payments for each year to be made to the United States shall become due and payable on such date or dates, not exceeding two, in each year as the Secretary determines will be substantially contemporaneous with the time or times in each year when water users receive crop returns and (2) if the contract be with an organization, that assessments or levies for the purpose of obtaining moneys sufficient to meet the organization's payments under said contract shall be made and shall become due and payable within a certain period or periods of time prior to the date or dates on which the organization's payments to the United States are due and payable, said period or periods of time to be agreed upon in each said contract.

The Secretary may provide such deferments of construction charges as in his judgment are necessary to prevent said requirements from resulting in inequitable pyramiding of payments of said charges.

(Aug. 4, 1939, ch. 418, §5, 53 Stat. 1191.)

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

#### Extension of Secretary's Authority To Enter Into Amendatory Contracts

Secretary's authority extended through Dec. 31, 1960, see section 485b–1 of this title.
#### A.B. Medical Services, PLLC, Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 614]—

*780In an action to recover no-fault benefits under an insurance contract, the defendant appeals, by permission, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated November 21, 2005, as reversed so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (E. Spodek, J.), dated June 30, 2004, as denied that branch of the motion of the plaintiff A.B. Medical Services, PLLC, which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover the sum of $1,999.12, and granted that branch of the motion.

Ordered that the order dated November 21, 2005, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, dated June 30, 2004, is affirmed insofar as it was appealed from.

To the extent the Appellate Term’s order may be understood to require an insurer denying a claim for first-party no-fault benefits on the ground of lack of medical justification to include a medical rationale in its denial of claim form, we agree with the defendant that the court erred. The applicable regulations provide that if a no-fault claim is denied in whole or in part based on a medical examination or peer review report requested by the insurer, then the insurer shall release a copy of that report to, among others, the applicant or its attorney, upon written request *(see*11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [b] [4]). Had it been the intent of the Department of Insurance to require the carrier to set forth a medical rationale in the prescribed denial of claim form *(see*NYS Form N-F 10; 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 [c] [11]), it would have so provided *(see A.B. Med. Servs. v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co.,*39 AD3d 778 [2007] [decided herewith]; *New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co.,*39 AD3d 832 [2007] [decided herewith]).

While the plaintiff A.B. Medical Services, PLLC (hereinafter A.B. Medical), made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed and received, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue *(see*Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]; *Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,*16 AD3d 564 [2005]; *Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co.,*5 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2004]), in response, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact with respect to its argument that the claimed benefits were *781properly denied on the ground of lack of medical justification *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Civil Court of the City of New York correctly denied that branch of A.B. Medical’s motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover the sum of $1,999.12. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Lifson, JJ., 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

Case No. C 09-1995 JF (PVT)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO RE-SERVE PLAINTIFFS WITH ORDER OF DECEMBER 18, 2009

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 2/18/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSE R. CARNERO, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

LUKE WEAVER, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 09-1995 JF (PVT)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK

TO RE-SERVE PLAINTIFFS WITH

ORDER OF DECEMBER 18, 2009 

On December 18, 2009, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motions to

dismiss the complaint. On January 27, 2010, Defendants filed a proposed judgment of dismissal,

noting that Plaintiffs had not filed an amended pleading. On February 8, 2010, Plaintiffs filed

opposition to the proposed judgment of dismissal, stating that they never received service of the

Court’s December 18 Order.

Because it is unclear from the docket whether Plaintiffs were served with the December

18 Order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve Plaintiffs with the December 18 Order

Case 3:09-cv-01995-SI Document 56 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Case No. C 09-1995 JF (PVT)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO RE-SERVE PLAINTIFFS WITH ORDER OF DECEMBER 18, 2009

(JFLC2)

along with the instant order. Plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) days from the date of service to

amend their pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01995-SI Document 56 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case No. C 09-1995 JF (PVT)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO RE-SERVE PLAINTIFFS WITH ORDER OF DECEMBER 18, 2009

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Eric D. Houser scleere@houser-law.com 

Joshua Howard Abel jabel@houser-law.com, chershey@houser-law.com 

Lee P. Bardellini cmcalice@bscb.com, storres@bscb.com 

Jose R. Carnero

Marta C. Carnero

1558 Minnesota Avenue 1/2

San Jose, CA 95125-4445

Case 3:09-cv-01995-SI Document 56 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 3
#### Marand Construction Corporation, Respondent-Appellant, v Rapid Rehabilitation Corporation, Appellant-Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover the balance due upon a construction contract and for extra work and services performed, (1) defendant appeals from a money judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 1, 1976, upon a jury verdict which was in favor of the plaintiff in the main action and in its favor on the counterclaim, and (2) plaintiff (a) cross-appeals from the same judgment on the ground of inadequacy and (b) appeals from an order of the same court, dated February 26, 1976, which denied its motion to amend the verdict to specify the date from which interest was to run. Appeal from the order dismissed (see *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and new trial granted. One bill of costs to cover both appeals is awarded to abide the event of the new trial. The trial in this case was characterized by intense acrimony between opposing counsel, into which the trial court was drawn. In our view, the acrimonious atmosphere which prevailed at the trial was so severe as to fundamentally impair the ability of the jury to reach an intelligent and fair verdict based solely upon the evidence before it and, accordingly, a new trial must be granted (see *Morris Cohon & Co. v Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Corp.,*10 AD2d 667, 668; *Kohlmann v City of New York,*8 AD2d 598; *Bowen v Mahoney Coal Corp.,*256 App Div 485, 486). The principal issue at the trial was whether some 40 items of construction were "additional work”, or "extra work”, within the technical meaning of the construction contract and the plans and specifications thereof. Upon the retrial, these plans and specifications should be introduced into evidence *1042(see *Taft v Little,*178 NY 127). In view of the determination reached herein, the other issues raised on this appeal have not been considered. Latham, J. P., Damiani, Suozzi and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
§ 242.30 Application of payments. All payments to be made by the mortgagor to the mortgagee shall be added together and the aggregate amount thereof shall be paid by the mortgagor each month in a single payment. The mortgagee shall apply each payment received to the following items in the following order: ( a ) Premium charges under the contract of mortgage insurance;
( b ) Ground rents, taxes, special assessments, and fire and other hazard insurance premiums;
( c ) Interest on the mortgage; and
( d ) Amortization of the principal of the mortgage.
Editorial Note on Part 30
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 87 FR 8197, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 30.85 Complaint. ( a ) *General.* Upon the expiration of the period for the respondent to submit a response to the prepenalty notice, the official designated in subpart B of this part, or his or her designee (or the Mortgagee Review Board in actions under § 30.35) shall determine whether to seek a civil money penalty. Such determination shall be based upon a review of the prepenalty notice, the response, if any, and the factors listed at § 30.80. A determination by the Mortgagee Review Board to seek a civil money penalty shall be by a majority vote of the Board.
( b ) If a determination is made to seek a civil money penalty, government counsel shall issue a complaint to the respondent on behalf of the officials listed at subpart B of this part or the Mortgagee Review Board for violations under § 30.35. The complaint shall be served upon respondent and simultaneously filed with the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and shall state the following: ( 1 ) The factual basis for the decision to seek a penalty;
( 2 ) The applicable civil money penalty statute;
( 3 ) The amount of penalty sought;
( 4 ) The right to submit a response in writing, within 15 days of receipt of the complaint, requesting a hearing on any material fact in the complaint, or on the appropriateness of the penalty sought;
( 5 ) The address to which a response must be sent;
( 6 ) That the failure to submit a response may result in the imposition of the penalty in the amount sought.
( c ) A copy of this part and of 24 CFR part 26, subpart B, shall be included with the complaint.
( d ) *Service of the complaint.* The complaint shall be served on the respondent by first class mail, personal delivery, or other means.
( e ) Before taking an action under §§ 30.35 for violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1735f-14(b)(1)(D) or (F), 30.36, or 30.50 for violation of 12 U.S.C. 1723i(b)(1)(G) or (I), the Secretary shall inform the Attorney General of the United States, which may be accomplished by providing a copy of the complaint. The Secretary shall include in the body of the complaint a statement confirming that this action was taken.
[61 FR 50215, Sept. 24, 1996, as amended at 74 FR 2752, Jan. 15, 2009]
§ 96.76 Procedures governing adverse action by the accrediting entity. ( a ) The accrediting entity must decide which adverse action to take based on the seriousness and type of violation and on the extent to which the accredited agency or approved person has corrected or failed to correct deficiencies of which it has been previously informed. The accrediting entity must notify an accredited agency or approved person in writing of its decision to take an adverse action against the agency or person. The accrediting entity's written notice must identify the deficiencies prompting imposition of the adverse action.
( b ) Before taking adverse action, the accrediting entity may, in its discretion, advise an accredited agency or approved person in writing of any deficiencies in its performance that may warrant an adverse action and provide it with an opportunity to demonstrate that an adverse action would be unwarranted before the adverse action is imposed. If the accrediting entity takes the adverse action without such prior notice, it must provide a similar opportunity to demonstrate that the adverse action was unwarranted after the adverse action is imposed, and may withdraw the adverse action based on the information provided.
( c ) The provisions in §§ 96.25 and 96.26 govern requests for and use of information.
### §§6024 to 6027. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–402, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1737

Section 6024, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §124, as added Pub. L. 98–527, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2675; amended Pub. L. 100–146, title II, §204, Oct. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 849; Pub. L. 101–496, §12, Oct. 31, 1990, 104 Stat. 1197; Pub. L. 102–119, §26(b), Oct. 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 607; Pub. L. 103–230, title II, §205, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 302, required each State receiving assistance to establish and maintain a State Developmental Disabilities Council.

Section 6025, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §125, as added Pub. L. 98–527, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2676; amended Pub. L. 100–146, title II, §205, Oct. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 850; Pub. L. 101–496, §13, Oct. 31, 1990, 104 Stat. 1197; Pub. L. 103–230, title II, §206, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 310, related to State allotments.

Section 6025a, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §125A, as added Pub. L. 103–230, title II, §207, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 312, established Federal and non-Federal shares.

Section 6026, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §126, as added Pub. L. 98–527, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2677; amended Pub. L. 103–230, title II, §208, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 313, provided for payments to States for planning, administration, and services.

Section 6027, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §127, as added Pub. L. 98–527, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2678; amended Pub. L. 100–146, title II, §207, Oct. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 851; Pub. L. 103–230, title II, §209, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 313, related to withholding of payments to States.
§ 72.5 Final report of death. ( a ) *Preparation.* Except in the case of the death of an active duty member of the United States Armed Forces, when there is a local death certificate or finding of death by a competent local authority, the consular officer should prepare a consular report of death (“CROD”) on the form prescribed by the Department. The CROD will list the cause of death that is specified on the local death certificate or finding of death. The consular officer must prepare an original Report of Death, which will be filed with the Vital Records Section of Passport Services at the Department of State. The consular officer will provide a certified copy of the Report of Death to the next of kin or other person with a valid need for the Report within six months of the time of death. The next of kin or other person with a valid need for the Report may obtain additional certified copies after six months by contacting the Department of State, Vital Records, Passport Services, 1111 19th St., NW., Rm. 510, Washington, DC 20036.
( b ) *Provision to Department.* The consular officer must sent the original of the CROD to the Department, with one additional copy for each agency concerned, if the deceased was: ( 1 ) A recipient of continuing payments other than salary from the Federal Government; or
( 2 ) An officer or employee of the Federal Government (other than a member of the United States Armed Services); or
( 3 ) A Selective Service registrant of inductable age.
( c ) *Provision to next of kin/legal representative.* The consular officer must provide a copy of the CROD to the next of kin (or legal guardian) or to each of the next of kin, in the event there is more than one (e.g. more than one surviving child) and to any known legal representative who is not the next of kin.
( d ) *Transmission of form to other consular districts.* If the consular officer knows that a part of the personal estate of the deceased is in a consular district other than that in which the death occurred, the officer should send a copy of the CROD to the consular officer in the other district.
( e ) The Department may revoke a CROD if it determines in its sole discretion that the CROD was issued in error.