alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
38862.

#### AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY *et al.*v. GIPSON.

Decided June 26, 1961

Rehearing denied July 7,1961.

*110*Erwin, Birchmore ■& Epting, Nicholas P. Chilivis,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Guy B. Scott, Jr,. James E. Hudson,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

An agreement fixing compensation between the employer and employee, approved by the Board of Workmen’s Compensation, and not appealed from, is res judicata as to the matters therein determined, and the parties are precluded from thereafter contradicting or challenging the matters thus agreed upon. *Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v. Cook,*195 Ga. 397, 399 (24 SE2d 309); *Hartford Accident &c. Co. v. Carroll,*75 Ga. App. 437, 444 (43 SE2d 722). Under this principle as applied to the evidence in this case, it is our *111opinion that the compensation agreement entered into between the claimant and the defendants in this case following the injury of July, 1959, is res judicata of the fact that the claimant received either an original back injury or an aggravation of a prior injury as a result of which claimant suffered a slipped disc. Accordingly, since the evidence authorized the finding that the claimant was suffering from this condition at the time of the hearing based on a change of condition and since the evidence authorized the finding that there had been a change of condition and that the claimant was temporarily totally disabled, the Superior Court of Clarke County did not err in affirming the award of the hearing director.

While Dr. Green, who was the claimant’s witness, testified that the claimant’s disability stemmed from the 1957 injury and was not related to the 1959 injury, the only reasonable construction of his testimony is that the disability which the claimant suffered in 1959 and for which a compensation agreement was entered into by the parties also stemmed from the 1957 injury. The defendants, however, by not asserting this defense after the 1959 injury and by entering into the compensation agreement, are now estopped under the doctrine of res judicata from contending that the present disability is unrelated to the 1959 injury since the evidence authorizes the finding that the present disability and that suffered after the 1959 injury are one and the same.

Thus, the case of *Roberts v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,*93 Ga. App. 440 (92 SE2d 51), and the other cases relied on by the defendants for the proposition that the fact that compensation was paid under the 1959 agreement does not preclude them from showing that the present disability did not stem from the admitted liability, are not applicable here. In those cases, as pointed out in the *Roberts*case, supra, the present disability was not traceable to the original injury and admitted liability whereas in the instant case they are one and the same.

Accordingly, the director’s findings of fact being authorized by the evidence and there being no errors of law which require a reversal of this case, the judgment under review must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend,*P.J., *and*Frankum, *J.} concur.*
1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond

L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2418

___________

Maurice B. Madison-Bey, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Correctional Medical Services, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2006

Filed: May 11, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota state prisoner Maurice Madison-Bey appeals the district court’s1

 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against

Correctional Medical Services (CMS) for deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

Madison-Bey has moved for appointment of counsel. 
-2-

After careful review of the record, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783

(8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review),we agree with the district court that the

complaint failed, because Madison-Bey did not allege that he suffered harm as a result

of an unconstitutional policy or custom of CMS, the sole named defendant, see Burke

v. N.D. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1044 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)

(corporation acting under color of state law may be liable only if policy, custom, or

action by those who represent official policy inflicts injury actionable under § 1983).

Further, Madison-Bey’s request to amend his complaint to add individual CMS

personnel as defendants was futile, because his allegations amounted to mere

disagreement with the course of his treatment and at most described negligence, which

is insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference. See Dulany v. Carnahan,

132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (inmates have no constitutional right to particular course of

treatment, and doctors are free to use their own medical judgment; mere negligence

or medical malpractice is insufficient to rise to constitutional violation).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Madison-Bey’s motion for appointment

of counsel and decline to consider his numerous other requests submitted for the first

time on appeal. 

______________________________
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

NO. WR-92, 035-02

EX P ART E VIC TORI A RAY RE NDON, Appl icant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A WRIT OF HAB EA S CORP US

CAUSE NO. 2020CR6864W-W1 I N THE 186TH DI STRI CT COURT

F ROM B EX AR COUNTY

P er cur iam

.

O P I N I O N

Ap pl i can t was co n v i ct ed o f t h ef

t an d s en t en ced t o s i

x mo n t h s i n t h e St at e J ai l

. A

ppl i c a nt

,

t h ro ugh h ab eas co un s el

, f

i l ed t h i s appl i cat i o n f

o r a wri t o f h ab eas co rpus i n t h e co un

t y o f co n v i ct i o n

,

an d t h e di s t ri ct cl erk f

o rwarded i

t t o t h i s Co urt

. See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art

. 11. 07.

A ppl i can t co m pl ai n s t h at h er t h ef

t o f f en s e was a m

i s dem ean o r an d n o t a f

el o n y

. T h e t h ef

t was

ch arged as a s t at e-j ai l f

el o n y b eca us e t h e St at e al l eged t h at A ppl i can t h ad t wo pri o r t h ef

t co n v i ct i o n s

.

See T E X P E N A L C O D E §31. 03. A ppl i can t

, h o wev er, h ad n o f

i n al co n v i ct i o n f o r o n e o f t h e pri o r t h ef

t s

b eca us e A ppl i can t s ucce s s f ul l y co m pl et ed def err ed-adj udi cat i o n i

n t h at caus e. E

x par te Langley

, 833

S. W

. 2d 141 (T ex

. Cri

m

. A pp. 1992). T h e t ri al co urt det ai l s al l o f A ppl i can t ’ s pri o r co n

v i ct i o n s an d

co n cl udes t h at t h ere was n o o t h er t h ef t co n v i ct i o n t h at co ul d h av e b een pro perl y pl ed. E x par te2

P ar r ott

, 396 S. W

. 3d 531 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 2013). T h e t r i a l c o u rt h as en t ered f i n di n gs an d

reco m m en ds t h at h ab eas rel i ef b e gran t ed. T h e t ri al co urt ’ s f

i n di n gs are s uppo rt ed b y t h e reco rd an d

appl i cab l e l aw. E

x par te R i c h

, 194 S. W

. 3d 508 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 2006). T h e o f

f en s e was a

m i s dem ean o r an d n o t a f

el o n y

.

Re l i ef i s gran

t ed. T h e j udgm en

t i n caus e n um b er 2020CR 6864W i

n t h e 186t h Di s t ri ct Co urt

o f Be x ar Co un

t y i s s et as i de, an d A

ppl i can t i s rem an ded t o t h e cus t o dy o f t h e Sh eri f f o f Be x ar Co un

t y

t o an s wer t h e ch arges as s et o ut i n t h e i n f o rm at i o n

. T h e t ri al co urt s h al l i s s ue an y n ece s s ary b en ch

warran t wi t h i n t en day s f

ro m t h e dat e o f t h i s Co urt ’ s m an dat e.

Co pi es o f t h i s o pi

n i o n s h al l b e s en

t t o t h e T ex as Depa

rt m en t o f Cri m i n al J us t i ce–C o rr ect i o n al

In s t i t ut i o n s Di v i s i o n an d t h e Bo ard o f Pardo n s an d Paro l es

.

Del i v ered: J an

uary 13, 2021

Do n o t pub l i s h
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



         This Amendment to Employment  Agreement (this "Amendment") is effective
as of December 31, 2001, by and between MIM Corporation,  a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), and Richard H. Friedman ("Executive").


         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of December 1, 1998, which the Company and Executive previously amended
on October 11, 1999 (the "Employment Agreement");


         WHEREAS,  the Company and  Executive  have agreed to extend the term of
Executive's employment pursuant to the Employment Agreement through November 30,
2006 and desire to amend the Employment Agreement to reflect this extension; and


         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to clarify that the Company,
in its discretion, may grant stock options to Executive in addition to the grant
specified in Section 3.4 of the Employment Agreement;


         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the mutual  covenants set forth
herein and other  valuable  consideration,  the  sufficiency  of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as
follows:


1.   Section 1 of the  Employment  Agreement  is hereby  amended  to  provide as
     follows:  "The Company  hereby  employs the  Executive,  and the  Executive
     hereby  accepts  such  employment,  commencing  as of  December 1, 1998 and
     ending  November 30, 2006, as Chief  Executive  Officer and Chairman of the
     Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") unless sooner terminated in
     accordance with the provisions of Section 4 or Section 5 (the period during
     which the  Executive is employed  hereunder,  including  any  extensions or
     renewals thereof, being hereinafter referred to as the "Term")."

2.   Section  3.4 of the  Employment  Agreement  is  hereby  amended  to add the
     following  sentence to the end thereof:  "After such grant,  the  Executive
     shall be eligible for additional grants of options,  if any, as recommended
     by the Company's Compensation Committee."

3.   Except as modified hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain unmodified
     and in full force and effect.


4.   This   Amendment   shall  be  construed  in   accordance   with,   and  its
     interpretation shall otherwise be governed by, the laws of the State of New
     York, without giving effect to otherwise applicable principles of conflicts
     of law.




<PAGE>




         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have executed this  Amendment
effective as of the date set forth above.


MIM CORPORATION


By: /s/ Barry A. Posner
    ------------------------------------------
    Barry A. Posner, Executive Vice President




 /s/ Richard H. Friedman
--------------------------------------
Richard H. Friedman



                                      - 2 -
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1560 Ultrasonic pulsed echo imaging system. ( a ) *Identification.* An ultrasonic pulsed echo imaging system is a device intended to project a pulsed sound beam into body tissue to determine the depth or location of the tissue interfaces and to measure the duration of an acoustic pulse from the transmitter to the tissue interface and back to the receiver. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). A biopsy needle guide kit intended for use with an ultrasonic pulsed echo imaging system only is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 892.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 84 FR 71818, Dec. 30, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.4100 Epistaxis balloon. ( a ) *Identification.* An epistaxis balloon is a device consisting of an inflatable balloon intended to control internal nasal bleeding by exerting pressure against the sphenopalatine artery.
( b ) *Classification* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 874.9.
[51 FR 40389, Nov. 6, 1986, as amended at 65 FR 2316, Jan. 14, 2000]
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.1580 Non-electroencephalogram (EEG) physiological signal based seizure monitoring system. ( a ) *Identification.* A non-electroencephalogram (non-EEG) physiological signal based seizure monitoring system is a noninvasive prescription device that collects physiological signals other than EEG to identify physiological signals that may be associated with a seizure.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The technical parameters of the device, hardware and software, must be fully characterized and include the following information: ( i ) Hardware specifications must be provided. Appropriate verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( ii ) Software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used by the device to achieve its intended use, must be described in detail in the Software Requirements Specification (SRS) and Software Design Specification (SDS). Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( 2 ) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 3 ) The device must be designed and tested for electrical, thermal, and mechanical safety and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC).
( 4 ) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate the ability of the device to function as an assessment aid for monitoring for seizure-related activity in the intended population and for the intended use setting. Performance measurements must include positive percent agreement and false alarm rate.
( 5 ) Training must be provided for intended users that includes information regarding the proper use of the device and factors that may affect the collection of the physiologic data.
( 6 ) The labeling must include health care professional labeling and patient-caregiver labeling. The health care professional and the patient-caregiver labeling must include the following information: ( i ) A detailed summary of the clinical performance testing, including any adverse events and complications.
( ii ) Any instructions technicians and clinicians should convey to patients and caregivers regarding the proper use of the device and factors that may affect the collection of the physiologic data.
( iii ) Instructions to technicians and clinicians regarding how to set the device threshold to achieve the intended performance of the device.
[82 FR 50082, Oct. 30, 2017]
§ 884.5390 Perineal heater. ( a ) *Identification.* A perineal heater is a device designed to apply heat directly by contact, or indirectly from a radiant source, to the surface of the perineum (the area between the vulva and the anus) and is used to soothe or to help heal the perineum after an episiotomy (incision of the vulvar orifice for obstetrical purposes).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 884.9.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71816, Dec. 30, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.4760 Bone plate. ( a ) *Identification.* A bone plate is a metal device intended to stabilize fractured bone structures in the oral cavity. The bone segments are attached to the plate with screws to prevent movement of the segments.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.1615 Miniature pressure transducer. ( a ) *Identification.* A miniature pressure transducer is a device intended for medical purposes to measure the pressure between a device and soft tissue by converting mechanical inputs to analog electrical signals.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 890.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 1125, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38816, July 25, 2001]
# C_2014253EN.01007002.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/70

---

Action brought on 18 June 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-56/14)

2014/C 253/99

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the two proposed calculations of the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme which apply the new GIPs on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions of 20 September 2013 making two proposed calculations of annuities to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union concerning application No 1 A112-BE-ONP and application No 2 BE-CPIE-1 (former reference), confirmed by the rejection decision of the Appointing Authority sent on 20 March 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of 20 September 2013 making two proposed calculations of annuities to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union concerning application No 1 A112-BE-ONP and application No 2 BE-CPIE-1 (former reference), confirmed by the rejection decision of the Appointing Authority sent on 20 March 2014;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-Q

[X]	Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Commission File No.: 0-27133

AQUAMOTION, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as it appears in its charter)
NEVADA	                                      88-0333296
(State or jurisdiction of	               (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)	     Identification No.)

5757  West Century Boulevard, Suite 340, Los Angeles, California  90045
(Address of Principal Executive Office)	                            (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code:	(310)-665-0221

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (b) of the Act:  None
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (b) of the Act:

Class A Common Stock $0.001 Par Value
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports to be
filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months ( or such shorter period that the registrant was required
to file such reports) and  (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days.	Yes 			No

At the end of the quarter ending 03/31/00 there were 5,000,000 issued and
outstanding shares of the registrants common stock.

There is no active market for the registrant's securities.



PART I.	FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
See attached exhibit

Item 2.	MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATION.
Results of Operations
The Company has had no operations during this quarter.

PART II.	OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.	Legal Proceedings.
None
Item 2.	Changes in Securities
None
Item 3.	Default Upon Senior Securities
None
Item 4.	Submission of matters To a Vote of Security Holders
None
Item 5.	Other Information.
None
Item 6.	Exhibits and Reports on Form 10-Q
(a)	The following documents are filed as part of this report:
            Financial Statements as of March 31, 2000.


Exhibits:

3.1		Articles of Incorporation	               Incorporated by
 		                                           reference The
		                               	  			       Company's Form 10-
			                                           SB/A filed on May 12th,
						                                        2000.


3.2			By-Laws		                             	 Incorporated by
		                                            reference The
						                                        Company's Form 10-
                  			                         SB/A filed on May 12th,
						                                        2000.




SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
Aquamotion, Inc.



By: /S/

        Kelly Ryan
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 10864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4896]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and 
Texas)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 
414-231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Tuesday, April 13, 2010, at 11 a.m. Central Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Patricia Robb. 
For more information please contact Ms. Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-
231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, 
Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: March 3, 2010.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010-4896 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P