alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Bray and Annunziata

RICHARD G. BROSCHINSKI

v. Record No. 0651-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM ALCOA BUILDING PRODUCTS SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 AND LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (A. Thomas Lane, Jr., on brief), for appellant. (J. David Griffin; Fowler, Griffin, Coyne & Coyne, on brief), for appellees.

The sole issue raised on appeal by Richard G. Broschinski (claimant) is that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in refusing to consider the June 9, 1994 letter of Richard D. Kolodner, a licensed professional counselor, on the ground that the letter does not qualify as a "medical report" under the Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"). Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's

decision. Rule 5A:27. In holding that Kolodner's opinion was not persuasive on the issue of disability, the commission found as follows: The claimant principally relies on a letter of June 9, 1994, from . . . Kolodner, licensed professional counselor. However, this cannot be considered as a medical report. Neff v. Houff Transfer, Inc. , VWC

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 File No. 165-33-84 (January 31, 1995). Kolodner is not a physician, and it does not appear that he has any type of professional graduate degree. Neither do we find any evidence that his opinion has been incorporated by any treating physician.

The commission's construction of the Act is entitled to great weight on appeal. City of Waynesboro v. Harter , 1 Va. App. 265, 269, 337 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1985). The term "medical report" is not defined in Code § 65.2-603 to include reports of licensed professional counselors. If the general assembly intended that the reports of licensed professional counselors be considered as medical reports it could have specifically provided for such. It did so for chiropractor's treatment reports. See Code § 65.2-603(D). "While the . . . Act is to be liberally construed for the employee's benefit, that policy does not authorize the amendment, alteration or extension of its provisions beyond its obvious meaning." Gajan v. Bradlick Co., Inc. , 4 Va. App. 213, 217, 355 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1987). Based upon the commission's interpretation of Code § 65.2-603, we cannot find as a matter of law that the commission erred in refusing to consider the letter of Kolodner, a licensed professional counselor, as a "medical report" under Code § 65.2-603. For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.

Affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Barry C. Kaye, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Coates International, Ltd. (the "Company");





2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and I have:





(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





(c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and to the audit committee of the Company's board of directors:





(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls; and





6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.




Dated: May 16, 2011
By:
/s/ Barry C. KayeBarry C. KayeTreasurer, Chief Financial Officerand Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Chris Boswell,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ J. Chris Boswell    |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| J. Chris Boswell        |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
|                    |   |   |
| Date: December 14, 2006 |   |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc. andwill be retained by Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----

**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jim B. Terry,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Jim B. Terry        |   |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Jim B. Terry            |   |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |   |   |
|                    |   |   |   |
| Date: December 14, 2006 |   |   |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc. andwill be retained by Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  Second Quarter 2001 and 2000


                             Second     Second    Standard   Standard
Age of householder           Quarter    Quarter   error on   error on
                                 2001       2000  2001 rate difference

United States..............      67.7       67.2        0.2        0.2

    Less than 25 years.....      22.1       21.1        0.6        0.9
    25 to 29 years.........      37.3       36.7        0.7        0.9
    30 to 34 years.........      54.9       54.3        0.6        0.8
    35 to 39 years.........      65.7       64.3        0.5        0.7
    40 to 44 years.........      70.3       70.5        0.5        0.7
    45 to 49 years.........      76.0       74.9        0.5        0.7
    50 to 54 years.........      78.6       78.7        0.5        0.7
    55 to 59 years.........      80.5       79.8        0.6        0.8
    60 to 64 years.........      82.7       80.9        0.6        0.8
    65 to 69 years.........      81.8       83.6        0.6        0.9
    70 to 74 years.........      81.6       81.2        0.6        0.9
    75 years and over......      77.7       77.9        0.5        0.7

      Less than 35 years...      40.8       40.2        0.4        0.5
      35 to 44 years.......      68.1       67.5        0.4        0.5
      45 to 54 years.......      77.2       76.7        0.4        0.5
      55 to 64 years.......      81.5       80.3        0.4        0.6
      65 years and over....      79.7       80.3        0.3        0.5
-  HIPAA for Professionals 
-  Regulatory Initiatives 
-  Privacy      -  Summary of the Privacy Rule 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Combined Text of All Rules 
  -  HIPAA Related Links 
-  Security      -  Summary of the Security Rule 
  -  Security Guidance  
  -  Cyber Security Guidance 
-  Breach Notification      -  Breach Reporting 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  Regulation History 
-  Compliance & Enforcement      -  Enforcement Rule 
  -  Enforcement Process 
  -  Enforcement Data 
  -  Resolution Agreements 
  -  Case Examples 
  -  Audit 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  State Attorneys General 
-  Special Topics      -  HIPAA and Part 2 
  -  Change Healthcare Cybersecurity Incident FAQs 
  -  HIPAA and COVID-19 
  -  HIPAA and Reproductive Health        -  HIPAA and Final Rule Notice 
  -  HIPAA and Telehealth 
  -  HIPAA and FERPA 
  -  Research 
  -  Public Health 
  -  Emergency Response 
  -  Health Information Technology 
  -  Health Apps 
-  Patient Safety      -  Statute & Rule        -  PSQIA Statute 
    -  Patient Safety Rule 
  -  Enforcement 
  -  Guidance 
-  Covered Entities & Business Associates      -  Business Associate Contracts 
  -  Business Associates 
-  Training & Resources 
-  FAQs for Professionals 
-  Other Administrative Simplification Rules 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Indiana Medical Records Service Pays $100,000 to Settle HIPAA Breach - May 23, 2019

Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. (MIE) has paid $100,000 to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and has agreed take corrective action to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules. MIE is an Indiana company that provides software and electronic medical record services to healthcare providers.
                          - Read the HHS Press Release
                          - Read the Resolution Agreement

Content last reviewed May 28, 2019
Exhibit 32.1

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 Cutter & Buck Inc. ("the Company") on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of fiscal year
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2004 ("the Report"), I, Frances M. Conley, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| |  | /s/FRANCES M. CONLEYFrances M. Conley Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23

---



QuickLinks
#### Joseph KINDERMAN, Appellant, v. Marilyn KINDERMAN, Appellee.

No. 71-845.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 2, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                              DIEDRICH COFFEE, INC.
                              ---------------------
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                        ---------------------------------


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            TWELVE WEEKS          THIRTEEN WEEKS      TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS      TWENTY-SIX WEEKS
                                         ENDED DECEMBER 15,     ENDED JANUARY 27,     ENDED DECEMBER 15,     ENDED JANUARY 27,
                                                1999                   1999                  1999                  1999
                                         ------------------     -----------------     ------------------     -----------------
<S>                                         <C>                    <C>                   <C>                    <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE
------------------------

Net income (loss)                           $    599,028           $  (446,586)          $    209,537           $(1,055,417)
                                            ============           ===========           ============           ===========

Weighted average number of shares
 outstanding during the period                12,615,601             5,934,287             12,319,034             5,934,287
                                            ============           ===========           ============           ===========

Basic net income (loss) per share:          $       0.05           $     (0.08)          $       0.02           $     (0.18)
                                            ============           ===========           ============           ===========

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
--------------------------

Diluted net income (loss)
                                            $    599,028           $  (446,586)          $    209,537           $(1,055,417)
                                            ============           ===========           ============           ===========

Weighted average number of shares
 outstanding during the period                12,615,601             5,934,287             12,319,034             5,934,287

Incremental shares attributable
 to the exercise of outstanding
 options                                         650,964                    --                733,097                    --
                                            ------------           -----------           ------------           -----------

          Total Shares
                                              13,266,565             5,934,287             13,052,131             5,934,287
                                            ============           ===========           ============           ===========

   Diluted net income (loss) per
    share:                                  $       0.05           $     (0.08)          $       0.02           $     (0.18)
                                            ============           ===========           ============           ===========
</TABLE>


                                       21
Exhibit 10.1




 


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2


TO


SYNAPTOGENIX, INC.


2020 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


In accordance with those certain resolutions adopted
by the Board of Directors and stockholders of Synaptogenix, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
the Synaptogenix, Inc. 2020 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.             Section 3(a) of
the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to increase the number of shares of the Company’s common stock, par value
$0.0001 per share, reserved for issuance under the Plan as follows:


 


“(a)         The
number of Shares which may be issued from time to time pursuant to this Plan shall be 1,375,000 shares of Common Stock.”


 


2.             Unless
otherwise expressly provided for in this Amendment No. 2 to the Plan (this “Amendment”), all capitalized
words, phrases, or defined terms used in this Amendment will have the same meaning ascribed to them in the Plan.


 


3.             Except
as expressly set forth in this Amendment, there have been no other changes or modifications to the Plan, and the Plan remains otherwise
unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


4.             This
Amendment shall be effective as of October 11, 2022.


 


[signature page follows] 


 




     


     


    


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused
this Amendment to be executed effective as of the date set forth above.


 


	 	SYNAPTOGENIX, INC.,
	 	A Delaware corporation
	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Alan J. Tuchman
	 	 	Alan J. Tuchman, Chief Executive Officer


 


[Signature Page to Amendment to the Plan]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             150
<SECURITIES>                                     6,973
<RECEIVABLES>                                      427
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,407
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,574
<BONDS>                                          2,180
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,579
<SALES>                                            250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   501
<CGS>                                              222
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      949
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (488)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (744)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,222)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        

</TABLE>
#### EAGLE, INC. and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Petitioners, v. Wilfredo PEVIDO et al., Respondents.

No. 39395.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 30, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., and DEKLE, Circuit Judge, concur.
252 La. 701

#### COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. Obie F. HOYT.

No. 49461.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 15, 1968.

On writs of certiorari, mandamus and review.

Certiorari granted.
#### Elizabeth M. KELLER, Appellant, v. Joseph PENOVICH, Penmark Corporation, a Florida corporation, d/b/a Redwood Inn, and Redwood Electric Company, Appellees.

No. 71-892.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 19, 1972.

*244Robert B. Cook, West Palm Beach, and Gilbert T. Brophy, Tequesta, for appellant.

Alan Lindsay, of Alley, Maass, Rogers, Lindsay & Chauncey, Palm Beach, for ap-pellees.

WALDEN, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant entered into a two-year oral employment contract. It was breached by defendant and plaintiff seeks damages.

The trial judge ruled the contract unenforceable as violative of the Statute of Frauds, Chapter 725.01, F.S.1969, F.S.A. Plaintiff alleges several reversible errors but we find them without merit and affirm.

Plaintiff tried to amend her factual averments in her amended pleadings to allege a year to year contract, a concept repugnant and inconsistent with the numerous sworn statements of both parties and their proponents. Plaintiff was properly estopped to so amend. Palm Beach Co. v. Palm Beach Estates, 1933, 110 Fla. 77, 148 So. 544; Federated Mutual Implement and Hardware Insurance Company v. Griffin, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 38.

We further find that summary judgment was applicable here because all parties were in agreement concerning the material and critical issues of fact. Additionally promissory estoppel is not controlling on oral employment contracts. Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., Fla.1966, 190 So.2d 777.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Paul Louis APPELL, Respondent.

No. 41468.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 20, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 250 So.2d 318.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.