alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Medical/Professional Relations

Adult Listings (Part A)

Childhood Listings (Part B)

General Information

Evidentiary Requirements

Listing of Impairments (overview) 

Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence

## **Disability Evaluation Under Social Security**

We no longer  publish Disability Evaluation Under Social Security in hardcopy  because we publish updated versions of the Listing of Impairments  electronically. 

----

**Our Disability Determination Process**        Most Social Security disability claims are initially processed through         a network of local Social Security Administration (SSA) field offices         and State agencies (usually called Disability Determination Services or         DDSs). Subsequent appeals of unfavorable determinations may be decided         in a DDS or by an administrative law judge in SSA’s Office of Hearing Operations.      
**Social Security Disability Planner for applying  for disability benefits online**

Social Security representatives in the field offices         usually obtain applications for disability benefits in person, by telephone,         by mail, or by filing online.         The application and related forms ask for a description of the claimant’s         impairment (s), treatment sources, and other information that relates         to the alleged disability. (The "claimant" is the person who         is requesting disability benefits.)

The field office is responsible for verifying non-medical         eligibility requirements, which may include age, employment, marital status,         or Social Security coverage information. The field office then sends the         case to a DDS for evaluation of disability.

The DDSs, which are fully funded by the Federal         Government, are State agencies responsible for developing medical evidence         and rendering the initial determination on whether or not a claimant is         disabled or blind under the law.

Usually, the DDS tries to obtain evidence from       the claimant's own medical sources first. If that evidence is unavailable       or insufficient to make a determination, the DDS will arrange for a       consultative examination (CE) to obtain the additional information needed.       The claimant's treating source is the preferred source for the CE, but the       DDS may obtain the CE from an independent source. After completing its       development of the evidence, trained staff at the DDS makes the initial       disability determination.

Then, the DDS returns the case to the field office         for appropriate action. If the DDS found that the claimant is disabled,         SSA completes any outstanding non-disability development, computes the         benefit amount, and begins paying benefits. If the claimant was found         not to be disabled, the file is kept in the field office in case the claimant         decides to appeal the determination.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1999 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,005
<SECURITIES>                                 1,011,120
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,601
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,036,158
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,036,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          412,248
<BONDS>                                        520,145
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,036,158
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,456
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,847
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,639
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,639
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,639
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

WHEREAS, McDATA Corporation, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Company), proposes to file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2006; and

WHEREAS, each of the undersigned is a Director of the Company:

NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned constitutes and appoints JOHN A. KELLEY, JR., SCOTT BERMAN and THOMAS O. McGIMPSEY, and each of them, as attorneys for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, and in
his or her capacity as a Director of the Company, to execute and file such annual report, and thereafter to execute and file an amendment or amendments thereto on Form 10-K, hereby giving and granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do
-and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully, to all intents and purposes, as he or she might or could do if personally present at the doing thereof, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys may or shall lawfully do, or cause to be done, by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the
undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney this 6thday of April, 2006.



|                                                    |  |              
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------
|/s/ JOHN A. KELLEY, JR. John A. Kelley,
Jr.         |  | April 6, 2006
|Chairman and CEO                                    |  |              
|                                                    | 
|/s/ JOHN W. GERDELMAN John W.
Gerdelman             |  | April 6, 2006
|                                                    | 
|/s/ CHARLES C. JOHNSTON Charles C.
Johnston         |  | April 6, 2006
|                                                    | 
|/s/ D. VAN SKILLING D. Van
Skilling                 |  | April 6, 2006
|                                                    | 
|/s/ THOMAS M. UHLMAN Thomas M.
Uhlman               |  | April 6, 2006
|                                                    | 
|/s/ LAURENCE G. WALKER Laurence G.
Walker           |  | April 6, 2006
|                                                    | 
|/s/ MICHAEL J. SOPHIE Michael J.
Sophie             |  | April 6, 2006
|                                                    | 
|/s/ M. ALEX MENDEZ M. Alex
Mendez                   |  | April 6, 2006
|                                                    | 
|/s/ DR. RENATO A. DIPENTIMA Dr. Renato A. DiPentima |  | April 6, 2006
|                                                    | 
|/s/ THOMAS G. HUDSON Thomas G. Hudson               |  | April 6, 2006
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-K of REV Holdings LLC
            (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
            Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd
            J. Slotkin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
            18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
            Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
            Company.

/S/ Todd J. SlotkinTodd J.
            SlotkinChief Financial OfficerMay 14, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
            Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
            Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
            Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
            been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
            to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
-------------------
   EXHIBIT 99.1
-------------------



                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
                   1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of USURF America,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  March  31,  2003,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas
O. McKinnon,  President and CEO of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 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; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


Dated: May 20, 2002                           /s/ Douglas O. McKinnon
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Douglas O. McKinnon
                                             President and CEO





<PAGE>
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.41 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: Edward Mulrenan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:46:43 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Edward Mulrenan
Waterbury, Connecticut
From: nettie7500@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:39:04 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Julie Graves

Juneau, AK 99801
Exhibit 10.3

                   Schedule of Additional Employment Contracts

Pursuant to  instruction  2 of Section 601 of  Regulation  S-K,  the  registrant
includes the  following  schedule  regarding  additional  management  employment
contracts the full text of which the registrant has omitted from this filing.

     (3)  Goshen  Savings Bank (the  "Bank") has also  entered  into  Employment
          Agreements with each of executive officers Barbara A. Carr and Rolland
          B.  Peacock  III which are  substantially  identical  in all  material
          respects to the  Employment  Agreement by and between the Bank and Mr.
          Dederick, as filed as Exhibit 10.1 to this Form 10-Q, except as to the
          parties thereto and their respective titles.

     (4)  GSB  Financial  Corporation  (the  "Company")  has also  entered  into
          Supplemental  Employment  Agreements  with each of executive  officers
          Barbara A. Carr and  Rolland B.  Peacock  III which are  substantially
          identical  in all  material  respects to the  Supplemental  Employment
          Agreement  by and between the  Company and Mr.  Dederick,  as filed as
          Exhibit 10.2 to this Form 10-Q,  except as to the parties  thereto and
          their respective titles.


                                       28
#### GEORGE F. WELLMAN, Appellant, *v.*MARSHALL S. FROST, Respondent.

*Practice*— right *to issue a precept to collect the costs of a*motion— *Code of Civil Procedv/re, sec.*779 — *when the order is served by mail the pa/rby has twenty days within which to pay them*— costs *of a motion ca/nnot be set-ojf against other motion costs, after the latter hme been assigned by the pa/rty.*

Appeal from an order made herein, by Hon. E. M. Cullen, dated July 27, 1885, setting aside and vacating, with ten dollars costs, a precept issued by plaintiff’s counsel to collect ten dollars costs of a motion awarded to plaintiff (on a motion made by him to strike out portions of defendant’s answer), and setting off such costs given by the order appealed from against the ten dollars, to collect which the precept was issued. A copy of the order *390was served by mail on the defendant’s attorney on July 2, 1885. A precept for the collection of the costs was issued on July third; the ten dollars costs awarded plaintiff, and for which the precept was issued, had, before the motion to set aside the precept was made, been assigned for a valuable consideration to A. J. Moore, the counsel for plaintiff, and a preliminary objection was made to said motion, that no notice of said motion had been given the assignee, which objection was overruled by the court.

The court at General Term said: “ The act of 1847, which provided for the collection of motion costs by a precept, was repealed by chapter 417 of Laws of 1877; but section 779 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended by chapter 397 of Laws of 1882, so that the substance of the law of 1847 upon this subject was re-enacted and embodied in section 779. That section now allows an execution to issue for the collection of motion costs. (Laws of 1882, p. 563.) The precept was set aside upon t'he ground that it was unauthorized. This was error. But the order *awarding costa*having been served by mail, the respondent had twenty days in which to pay and the precept was prematurely issued, and upon this ground the precept was properly set aside.

“ The amendment to section 779 of Code, passed in 1882, before referred to, provides for the issuing of the execution only in case the costs are not paid within the time fixed by the order, and if no time is fixed by the order then in ten days. The order setting aside the precept was therefore right. The costs of the previous order, however, had been assigned to one A. J. Moore, and the costs imposed by the order setting aside the precept could not be set-off against them after such assignment.

*“*Order modified by reversing so much of the order appealed *from*as provided for the set-off, without costs.”

*Moore*c6 Moore, for the appellant.

*Edward L. Erost,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Pratt, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

Order reversed, as to so much as provided for a set-off; that part of order that set aside precept, affirmed; no costs.
[No. 2425.]

#### Fitzhugh v. Brown.

1. Appellate Practice — Evidence—Findings.

A verdict of the jury upon disputed facts, where the evidence is contradictory and where there is evidence to support the verdict, is conclusive upon the appellate court.

2. Juries — Verdicts—Instructions.

Where a jury of six returned a. unanimous verdict, an erroneous instruction which told the jury that five of their number might return a verdict, was not prejudicial.

*Appeal from the County Court' of El Paso County.*

*237Mr. Geo. Q. Richmond, for appellant.

Messrs. Orb. & McKesson, for appellee.

Maxwell, J.

Appellant urges a reversal of the judgment in this ease, upon the ground that the verdict upon which the judgment was rendered was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

A review of the testimony here would accomplish no good purpose. .

We cannot say that the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence, nor that it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

This case has been tried twice; once before a justice of the peace, and once in the county court, both trials resulting adversely to appellant.

The motion for a. new trial, based upon the ground urged here, was argued .to the county court and denied.

The courts below saw and heard the witnesses.

If there was a doubt as to where the weight of the evidence was, .the fact that two.trials resulted in judgments against appellant, would be very persuasive, if not controlling, in arriving at a conclusion upon this point. However, a thoroughly settled rule of the appellate courts of this state, as to the conclusiveness of the verdict of the jury upon disputed facts where the evidence is contradictory, and where there is evidence to support the verdict, is decisive of this point against appellant.

The only other question presented goes to the instruction given by the court to the jury, that not less than five of their number agreeing thereto might return a verdict, each member of the jury so agreeing, signing the verdict. The trial was to a jury of six, which returned a unanimous verdict.

This court has ruled adversely to appellant upon *238this proposition, in *Adams Express Co. v. Aldridge, ante,*74. See, also, *First National Bank v. Foster,*9 Wyo. 157, 63 Pac. 1056.

The judgment must he affirmed.

*Affirmed.*