alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 485.713 Condition of participation: Physical therapy services. If the organization offers physical therapy services, it provides an adequate program of physical therapy and has an adequate number of qualified personnel and the equipment necessary to carry out its program and to fulfill its objectives. ( a ) *Standard: Adequate program.* ( 1 ) The organization is considered to have an adequate outpatient physical therapy program if it can: ( i ) Provide services using therapeutic exercise and the modalities of heat, cold, water, and electricity;
( ii ) Conduct patient evaluations; and
( iii ) Administer tests and measurements of strength, balance, endurance, range of motion, and activities of daily living.
( 2 ) A qualified physical therapist is present or readily available to offer supervision when a physical therapist assistant furnishes services. ( i ) If a qualified physical therapist is not on the premises during all hours of operation, patients are scheduled so as to ensure that the therapist is present when special skills are needed, for example, for evaluation and reevaluation.
( ii ) When a physical therapist assistant furnishes services off the organization's premises, those services are supervised by a qualified physical therapist who makes an onsite supervisory visit at least once every 30 days.
( b ) *Standard: Facilities and equipment.* The organization has the equipment and facilities required to provide the range of services necessary in the treatment of the types of disabilities it accepts for service.
( c ) *Standard: Personnel qualified to provide physical therapy services.* Physical therapy services are provided by, or under the supervision of, a qualified physical therapist. The number of qualified physical therapists and qualified physical therapist assistants is adequate for the volume and diversity of physical therapy services offered. A qualified physical therapist is on the premises or readily available during the operating hours of the organization.
( d ) *Standard: Supportive personnel.* If personnel are available to assist qualified physical therapists by performing services incident to physical therapy that do not require professional knowledge and skill, these personnel are instructed in appropriate patient care services by qualified physical therapists who retain responsibility for the treatment prescribed by the attending physician.
[41 FR 20865, May 21, 1976. Redesignated at 42 FR 52826, Sept. 30, 1977. Further redesignated and amended at 60 FR 2326, 2327, Jan. 9, 1995; 60 FR 50447, Sept. 29, 1995]
41205.

#### C. & S. REALTY COMPANY v. PERRY PRINTING PROCESS COMPANY.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

The bill of exceptions assigns error successfully only on the judgment of the trial court which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered for the defendant against the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s petition and in favor of the defendant for the sum sought by the latter’s cross action.

It is palpably self-evident from the record that the trial judge grounded his grant of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his construction, a correct one, of the plain language of an unambiguous provision of the written contract involved which was attached to the amended petition. The evidence offered by the parties on the motion for summary judgment did nothing to show either an issue of fact or a lack of material factual dispute. Although the judgment recited at random that “the pleadings and affidavits show there is no *672genuine issue as to any material fact,” the heart of the judgment is the court's statement that “it is our opinion that the proper construction of paragraph 39 of the lease in question entitled the defendant to a judgment as a matter of law.” This context clearly shows that the trial court based its grant of the motion for summary judgment solely on its construction of paragraph 39 of the contract attached to the petition.

Argued March 3, 1965

Decided May 12, 1965.

*Marvin P. Nodvin, Albert L. Sandlin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Carl A. Herbig,*contra.

Previously the court had overruled a renewed general demurrer to the petition as amended which ruling stands unmodified and unappealed. Thus, that ruling became the law of the case and the court could not thereafter, *in absence of evidence eliminating from the case every genuine issue of material fact,*correct its error in overruling the general demurrer by granting a motion for summary judgment. *Hester v. Dixie Finance Corp.,*109 Ga. App. 204, 207 (135 SE2d 504).

Since the defendant in error did not except to the overruling of its general demurrer by a cross bill of exceptions on this appeal or by a 'direct bill the judgment must be reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*
#### BERGERON LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Frank KNIGHT et al., Appellees.

No. 74-529.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1975.

Steven Squire of Miller & Squire, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Rollo E. Karkeet, Miami, for appellees.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant filed its complaint against ap-pellees Frank Knight, Nelio Oramas, and Monico, Inc., to impress a constructive trust upon certain real property in Bro-ward County.

The individual appellees filed motions to dismiss which were granted with leave to file an amended complaint. The corporate defendant, Monico, Inc., filed an answer containing a general denial and an affirmative defense of res judicata. The court then granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Monico, Inc., finding *241that the issues between appellant and Mon-ico, Inc., had been previously litigated in another case in the Circuit Court of Bro-ward County, thus rendering said issues res judicata. No evidence was offered (nor could it properly be) at the hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Thus, it appears the court purported to take judicial notice of the pleadings, issues, and adjudication in another case lately pending in the same circuit.

Two well known rules control our decision on this appeal. When one party moves for a judgment on the pleadings, the court (for the purpose of the motion) must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations (affirmative and negative) of the nonmoving party. Greater Miami Tel. Answer. Serv. v. A-1 Answer. Serv., Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 619; Kendall Flying School, Inc., v. Robertson, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 344. The second rule is that “the trial court is not authorized to take judicial notice of the records in a different case pending or disposed of in the same court but outside the record in the case before him.” Kostecos v. Johnson, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 594; Novack v. Novack, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 499; duPont v. Rubin, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 795. In order to prove some matter contained in the record of a case other than the one being litigated, a party must offer the other court file or certified copies of portions thereof into evidence in the case then being litigated. The improper judicial notice in the present case has harmed appellant prejudicially since there is no way for this court to determine the propriety of the trial court’s conclusion as to the effect of prior litigation on the rights of the parties in the present controversy. The present case is thus distinguishable from Mennella Plastering, Inc., v. Adobe Brick And Supply Co., Inc., Fla.1973, 273 So.2d 1.

The trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by appellee Monico, Inc. Since the cause must be returned for further proceedings, the trial court is directed to reinstate the lis pendens expunged by order of March 27, 1974, and allow appellant to file an amended complaint against all of the defendants if it be so advised.

Reversed.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ. concur.
Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.39 
 Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Named Executive Officers 
 Set forth below is a
summary of the compensation paid by MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (the “Company”) to the executive officers to be named in the Company’s 2009 annual proxy statement who are not covered by current employment agreements, as of the
date of filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-K”) and are continuing as an executive officer of the Company in 2009. Each of these executive officers is an employee
at will whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors. 
 Base Salaries. These executive officers receive base salaries in the amounts indicated below: 
  

				
	 Name and Position
	  	2009 Base Salary
Amount
	 Mignon Cabrera, Senior Vice President, Human Resources
	  	$	244,000
	 Michael Cheles, Vice President, Information Technology and CIO
	  	$	237,000
	 Kenneth H. Hannah, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	441,000
	 John A. Kauffmann, Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing
	  	$	340,000
	 Bradley D. Kohn, Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	  	$	273,000
	 Shaker Sadasivam, Senior Vice President, Research and Development
	  	$	348,000

 The Compensation Committee adjusts these base salaries from time to time as the Committee deems
appropriate, generally annually each year in January. In January 2009, however, the Committee decided that in light of the current worldwide economic climate in January 2009 and limited visibility of future Company performance for 2009 due to this
climate, no increase in the executive officers’ base salaries would be made at that time. 
 Incentive Awards. These executive
officers are also eligible to participate in the Company’s incentive compensation plans as provided in the terms of such plans, including the Company’s short term incentive awards plan (which provides for cash incentive awards) and the
Company’s long-term incentive awards plan (e.g., the Company’s 2001 Equity Incentive Plan). Such plans, and any forms of awards thereunder providing for material terms, are included as exhibits to the Form 10-K as appropriate. 

Pension Plan. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the Company Pension Plan on the same terms as the Company’s
other covered employees. Because they commenced employment after December 31, 2001, Ms. Cabrera, Mr. Cheles, Mr. Hannah and Mr. Kohn are not covered by the MEMC Pension Plan. 
 Relocation Payments. From time to time the Company makes payments to executive officers to cover relocation expenses.
§ 483.24 Quality of life. Quality of life is a fundamental principle that applies to all care and services provided to facility residents. Each resident must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, consistent with the resident's comprehensive assessment and plan of care. ( a ) Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, the facility must provide the necessary care and services to ensure that a resident's abilities in activities of daily living do not diminish unless circumstances of the individual's clinical condition demonstrate that such diminution was unavoidable. This includes the facility ensuring that: ( 1 ) A resident is given the appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve his or her ability to carry out the activities of daily living, including those specified in paragraph (b) of this section,
( 2 ) A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene, and
( 3 ) Personnel provide basic life support, including CPR, to a resident requiring such emergency care prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel and subject to related physician orders and the resident's advance directives.
( b ) *Activities of daily living.* The facility must provide care and services in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section for the following activities of daily living: ( 1 ) Hygiene—bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care,
( 2 ) Mobility—transfer and ambulation, including walking,
( 3 ) Elimination—toileting,
( 4 ) Dining—eating, including meals and snacks,
( 5 ) Communication, including ( i ) Speech,
( ii ) Language,
( iii ) Other functional communication systems.
( c ) *Activities.* ( 1 ) The facility must provide, based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan and the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, encouraging both independence and interaction in the community.
( 2 ) The activities program must be directed by a qualified professional who is a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an activities professional who— ( i ) Is licensed or registered, if applicable, by the State in which practicing; and
( ii ) Is: ( A ) Eligible for certification as a therapeutic recreation specialist or as an activities professional by a recognized accrediting body on or after October 1, 1990; or
( B ) Has 2 years of experience in a social or recreational program within the last 5 years, one of which was full-time in a therapeutic activities program; or
( C ) Is a qualified occupational therapist or occupational therapy assistant; or
( D ) Has completed a training course approved by the State.
[81 FR 68859, Oct. 4, 2016]
HomeBureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationRemarks & Releases...Junior Professional Officer – Associate Officer, Multiple Locations

# 									Junior Professional Officer – Associate Officer, Multiple Locations							

JPO Vacancies

February 15, 2024

The following UNHCR JPO vacancies are open for applications:
        - Associate Re settlement & Complementary Pathways Officer – Guatemala City, Guatemala
        - Associate Child Protection Officer – Jijiga, Ethiopia
        - Associate Protection Officer – Bangkok (MCO), Thailand 
        - Associate Protection Officer – Cox’s Bazaar, Bangladesh
        - Associate Programme CBI Officer – Mexico City, Mexico
        - Associate Programme Officer – Athens, Greece
        - Associate Durable Solutions Officer – Dakar, Senegal

----

If you would like to be notified when new JPO vacancies are announced, you can **subscribe here**.  If you subscribe, updates will be sent to you from **usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov**. Please monitor your spam and junk mail folders to ensure you are not blocking emails from this address.

To learn of other international career opportunities available to U.S. Citizens please see the Department of State, **Bureau of International Organization’s career website.**

Tags

Bureau of International Organization AffairsBureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Back to Top
§ 476.110 Use of immediate advocacy to resolve oral beneficiary complaints. ( a ) *Immediate advocacy.* A QIO may offer the option of resolving an oral complaint through the use of immediate advocacy if: ( 1 ) The complaint is received not later than 6 months from the date on which the care giving rise to the complaint occurred.
( 2 ) After initial screening of the complaint, the QIO makes a preliminary determination that— ( i ) The complaint is unrelated to the clinical quality of health care itself but relates to items or services that accompany or are incidental to the medical care and are provided by a practitioner and/or provider; or
( ii ) The complaint, while related to the clinical quality of health care received by the beneficiary, does not rise to the level of being a gross and flagrant, substantial, or significant quality of care concern.
( 3 ) The beneficiary agrees to the disclosure of his or her name to the involved provider and/or practitioner.
( 4 ) All parties orally consent to the use of immediate advocacy.
( 5 ) All parties agree to the limitations on redisclosure set forth in § 480.107 of this subchapter.
( b ) *Discontinuation of immediate advocacy.* The QIO or either party may discontinue participation in immediate advocacy at any time. ( 1 ) The QIO must inform the parties that immediate advocacy will be discontinued; and
( 2 ) The beneficiary must be informed of his or her right to submit a written complaint in accordance with the procedures in § 476.120.
( c ) *Confidentiality requirements.* All communications, written and oral, exchanged during the immediate advocacy process must not be redisclosed without the written consent of all parties.
( d ) *Abandoned complaints.* If any party fails to participate or otherwise comply with the requirements of the immediate advocacy process, the QIO may determine that the complaint has been abandoned and— ( 1 ) Inform the parties that immediate advocacy will be discontinued; and
( 2 ) Inform the Medicare beneficiary of his or her right to submit a written complaint in accordance with the procedures in § 476.120.
[77 FR 68561, Nov. 15, 2012]
Meeting with Composite Panel Association (CPA) and American Chemistry Council 

Formaldehyde Panel (ACC Formaldehyde Panel), July 2, 2014

Attendees:

Wendy Cleland-Hamnett (EPA)

Rebecca Edelstein (EPA)

Jim Jones (EPA)

Tom Julia (CPA)

Brock Landry (CPA)

Jackson Morrill (ACC Formaldehyde Panel)

Jeff Morris (EPA)

Tanya Mottley (EPA)

Ryan Wallace (EPA)

On July 2, 2014, EPA met with representatives from CPA and ACC Formaldehyde Panel

regarding EPA’s proposed regulations implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products Act. CPA and ACC Formaldehyde Panel discussed their concerns about 

potential dissemination of confidential business information. They also discussed the need for a 

strong third-party certification and testing system as well as strong enforcement of the regulation. 

Both CPA and ACC Formaldehyde Panel stated that they support the national formaldehyde 

emission standards.
#### Joseph L. Moss, Jr., Plaintiff, *v.*Robert Lindblomm et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

January, 1899.)

Account stated — Complaint — An assignee cannot bind his assignor to a personal obligation.

A complaint which alleges that an account was stated between the parties and a balance found due, but which contains no allegations of any prior business relations between them nor any promise to pay, is demurrable; and its insufficient statement of a legal obligation is further impaired where it alleges that the stating of the account was made by an account *• hereto annexed ”, signed only by the assignee of the defendants, or the clerk of the assignee.

An assignee, whether general or particular, cannot bind his assignors to a personal obligation, nor beyond a distribution of the property assigned.

Demurrer to complaint.

Seward Baker, for plaintiff.

L. A. Gould, for defendants.

Russell, J.

The effective legal operation of an account stated, springs from the basis of previous dealings between the parties.

Without them the stating rests .upon no consideration of legal import. There is in the complaint no allegation of any prior business transaction between the parties, and not even an averment of a promise to pay which was essential even under common-law pleadings. 1 Chit. PL 358; 2 id. 90. Hence an averment that *“*An account was stated between the parties,” and a balance found to be due from defendants to plaintiff, is not of itself the assertion of a legal obligation.

But even this allegation is impaired by qualification. It is averred that the stating of accounts was made by the account or statement *“*hereto annexed.” That appendix shows a speculative transaction, and a balance stated, and it is signed only by “ Royal Trust Co., Assignee of Robert Lindblomm & Co.; Phillip.” The assignee, whether deriving authority by general or particular as*158signment, cannot bind defendants to-the obligation of personal enforcement, or beyond the distribution of the property passed by the assignment. Hence the stating,of an account by the assignee or its clerk, affects only the dividend to be received1 from the assignee, and does not conclude the defendants, as to their .personal obligations. Volkening v. De Graaf, 81 N. Y. 268; Stenton v. Jerome, 54 id. 484.

The substance of this memorandum-was written before the decision of the Appellate Division affirming the order denying the motion to vacate the attachment, and I submit these views with some hesitation on that account. But 'the -.same particularity of statement in an application for an attachment is not required as is essential to testen demurrer, a complaint averring the facts forming the cause of action. Goldmark v. Magnolia Metal Co., 28 App. Div. 264, 271.

Otherwise the decision of the Appellate Division would require a different determination than that here announced.

Judgment directed for defendants on demurrer to complaint with leave to amend on payment of coste since service of demurrer.

Ordered accordingly.
§ 441.152 Certification of need for services. ( a ) A team specified in § 441.154 must certify that— ( 1 ) Ambulatory care resources available in the community do not meet the treatment needs of the beneficiary;
( 2 ) Proper treatment of the beneficiary's psychiatric condition requires services on an inpatient basis under the direction of a physician; and
( 3 ) The services can reasonably be expected to improve the beneficiary's condition or prevent further regression so that the services will no longer be needed.
( b ) The certification specified in this section and in § 441.153 satisfies the utilization control requirement for physician certification in §§ 456.60, 456.160, and 456.360 of this subchapter.
[43 FR 45229, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 61 FR 38398, July 24, 1996]
#### In re James E. SHIELDS, Attorney.

No. 63834.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 16, 1979.

In re James E. Shields, Attorney, applying for supervisory writs and stay order. Orleans Parish.

Writ granted. A contradictory hearing ordered to determine whether relator is in constructive contempt in violation of La.C. Cr.P., Art. 23(2).

SUMMERS, C. J.,

dissents, being of the opinion that the ruling of the trial judge was correct. The contempt of court was direct and a contumacious failure to comply with the order of the trial judge to appear in court, action tending to interrupt or in*864terfere with the business of the court and to impair its dignity and respect for its authority. La.Code Crim.Pro. Art. 21(5). Moreover, relator’s petition is both derogatory and insulting to the judge and should be returned.