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

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons

ROBERT H. WOOD MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2037-98-3 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 2, 1999 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AND ELECTRIC MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Robert H. Wood, pro se ). No brief for appellees.

Robert H. Wood ("claimant") contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in finding that Dr. Charles Ashworth was not his authorized treating physician, and, therefore, employer was not responsible for the cost of medical treatment rendered by Dr. Ashworth and by Dr. William E. Frank, upon referral from Dr. Ashworth. Upon reviewing the record and appellant's opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's

decision. See Rule 5A:27. In denying claimant's request that employer be held responsible for the cost of medical treatment rendered to claimant by Drs. Ashworth and Frank, the commission found as

follows: Although he was treated several times by the employer's plant physician, Dr. Robert J.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Glenn, Mr. Wood notes that his employer did not give him a panel from which to choose an authorized physician. He reasons that because he was not given a panel he could choose Dr. Ahsworth [sic] to be his authorized physician. The fact that Mr. Wood was not given a panel did not give him the right to choose Dr. Ashworth as his treating physician. In 1987, the Commission held that Dr. Glenn became Mr. Wood's treating physician. Because of that opinion, Mr. Wood's treating physician was Dr. Glenn. Therefore, Dr. Ashworth's treatment and the referrals by him are not the employer's responsibility.

The commission's 1987 opinion held that Dr. Glenn was claimant's treating physician. That opinion was not appealed, and, therefore, became final. In general, absent a referral from Dr. Glenn, the authorized treating physician, claimant was not entitled to change treating physicians except by permission from the commission or the employer. See Shenandoah Prods., Inc. v.

Whitlock , 15 Va. App. 207, 210, 421 S.E.2d 483, 485 (1992). No evidence showed that claimant sought permission from the commission or employer to seek medical treatment from Drs. Ashworth or Frank. Accordingly, because Dr. Ashworth was not an authorized treating physician, any referral of claimant by Dr.

Ashworth to Dr. Frank would also have been unauthorized. Based upon this record, the commission did not err in refusing to hold employer responsible for the cost of medical treatment rendered to claimant by either Dr. Ashworth or Dr. Frank. 1

1 We note, as did the commission, that the documents submitted by claimant after the commission's decision did not qualify as after-discovered evidence, and, therefore, we did not consider them on appeal.- 3 - For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.

Affirmed

.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,James S.J. Manuso, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents inall material respects the financial condition and results of operations ofSuperGen, Inc.
|     | By:    | /s/ JAMES S.J.  MANUSO                  |
|----------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|     | Name:  | James S.J. Manuso                       |
|     | Title: | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
| * * |   | *(Principal Executive Officer)*         |

 

I,Michael Molkentin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents inall material respects the financial condition and results of operations ofSuperGen, Inc.
|     | By:    | /s/ MICHAEL  MOLKENTIN                         |
|----------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|     | Name:  | Michael Molkentin                              |
|     | Title: | *Chief Financial Officer*                      |
| * * |   | *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
News United States Air Force
 AF Reserve, Guard leaders testify before the SenatePublished April 30, 2015
                        
                        By Senior Airman Hailey Haux
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs Command Information
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The chief of the Air Force Reserve and the director of the Air National Guard testified alongside the other services’ Reserve chiefs and Guard directors before the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense, April 29.
With the threat of sequestration-level funding looming, both the Guard director and Reserve chief said they need the support of Congress to be ready for the fight today and tomorrow.
“Without question, our people – the men and women and their families who make up the Air Force Reserve – are our greatest strength and must be our top priority,” said Air Force Reserve Chief Lt. Gen. James F.  Jackson, in his written testimony. “Yet, ongoing budget uncertainty and arbitrary fiscal constraints degrade our readiness, hurt our people, and strain our ability to properly train and equip our force.”
With approximately 5,000 Airmen from the Air Force Reserve and more than 5,000 Airmen from the ANG on mobilization orders, both have requested increases in their end strength to optimize the total force to address geopolitical realities and global demands. As part of the Fiscal Year 2016 President’s Budget Request, the Reserve is asking for an increase of 2,100 personnel while the Guard is asking for 500 more guardsmen. 
“The National Guard has evolved from a strategic reserve, called upon primarily during national emergencies to an essential partner in the total Air Force,” said ANG Director Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Clarke III. “Today’s Air National Guard, in addition to providing a reserve surge capacity, contributes daily to the U.S. Air Force commitment to global vigilance, global reach and global power in five core missions.”
Likewise, Jackson said Air Force Reserve Airmen are experienced and dedicated professionals, who are always ready to support our nation when called.
“We remain an essential partner in our three-component Air Force; however, being ready for today’s fight is not enough – we must also look to the future,” he said.ANG 



Air Force Reserve 



Air National Guard 



Congress 



Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense Related Links
        LIEUTENANT GENERAL STANLEY E. CLARKE III
                                Oct. 19, 2015
                                Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Clarke III is the Director, Air National Guard, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for formulating, developing and coordinating all policies, plans and programs affecting more than 105,700 Guard members and civilians in more than 89 flying wings and 175
            
            JAMES "JJ" JACKSON
                                Dec. 19, 2014
                                Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, and Commander, Air Force Reserve Command
News United States Air Force
 Benefits claim process for voluntary separateesPublished Nov. 10, 2014
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Records for all Airmen separated or retired under the fiscal year 2014 Voluntary Separation Pay program were updated Nov. 5 to reflect eligibility for transitional medical benefits.
Those separating under the fiscal year 2014/15 VSP program are authorized transition benefits, including 180 days of premium-free TRICARE coverage for the separatee and any eligible family members. Emails and registered letters are currently being sent to all Airmen affected by these changes.
Airmen who applied for separation and are still within 180 days from separation should visit the nearest military ID card issuance facility to obtain the appropriate forms that allow for use of the benefits. Issuance facility locations are available throughthe RAPIDS site locator.    
Information about filing TRICARE claims, including applicable deadlines, is available at www.TRICARE.mil/claims.
Airmen can contact the Air Force Total Force Service Center at 1-800-525-0102 for questions concerning benefit eligibility or ID card issuance. 
For details on transitional health care benefits, view the Transitional Assistance Management Program fact sheet.Enlisted Force Management 



officer force management 



medical 



force management Related Links
        AF authorizes medical benefits for some separatees
                                Oct. 31, 2014
                                Air Force senior leaders announced adjustments to benefits for Airmen separated under the fiscal year 2014 Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) program Oct. 31.
            
            Transitional Assistance Management Program fact sheet
#### WOMEN’S MEDICAL CENTER AT HOWELL, NORTH JERSEY GYNECOLOGICAL CENTER, INC. v. JOANNE FINLEY, M.D.

February 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - QUARTER AND SIX MONTHS ENDED,
DECEMBER 31, 1995 (FORM 10Q) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          31,078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  740,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,100
<INVENTORY>                                  1,368,556
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,262,449
<PP&E>                                       6,679,891
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,463,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,197,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,187,101
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,067,751
<OTHER-SE>                                   (807,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,197,752
<SALES>                                      1,292,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,177,166
<CGS>                                          753,656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,598,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (469,130)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (469,130)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (469,130)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
13.1








Certifications of the CEO
AND CFO


Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Envoy Capital Group Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 20-F for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), J. Joseph Leeder as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Andrew Patient as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of his or her knowledge, 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.








Date:                 December
16, 2009


By:
            /s/ J. JOSEPH
      LEEDERName:  J.
      Joseph LeederTitle:    President
      and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
            /s/ ANDREW
      PATIENTName:  Andrew
      PatientTitle:    Chief
      Financial Officer





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 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 ss. 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LAWRENCE KRIEGER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued May 1, 1984

Decided May 16, 1984.

*Gary H. Schlyen,*Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant *(Joseph A. Falcone,*Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney; *Margaret Ann F. Mullins,*Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

*Robert A. Jacobson,*Designated Counsel, argued the cause for respondent *(Joseph H. Rodriguez,*Public Defender, attorney).

*257PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Michels, reported at 193 *N.J.Super.*568, 579 (1983).

*For reversal*—Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices SCHREIBER, O’HERN and GARIBALDI—4.

*For affirmance*—Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER and POLLOCK—3.

CLIFFORD, HANDLER, and POLLOCK, JJ.,

dissenting:

We would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the majority of that court, reported at 193 *N.J.Super.*568 (1983).
#### J. D. Thomas v. J. S. Ownby & Son.

(No. 1566, Op. Book No. 2, p. 523.)

Error from Lamar County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1212. *Lden of mechanics and material men; construction of statute; necessary parlies in suit to enforce.*Defendants in error sued plaintiff in error, alleging that they had furnished to one Fristoe, who was building a house for plaintiff in error, material for the construction of said house to the amount in value of $164; that they had furnished plaintiff in error with an attested copy of their account, but did not allege when this attested copy was furnished. Upon these allegations alone defendants in error .sought to recover, and did recover, judgment against plaintiff in error for the full amount of their claim. Plaintiff in error, in the court below, excepted specially to plaintiff’s petition, on the ground that it appeared from the same that Fristoe was a necessary party to the suit. The exceptions were overruled. *Held,*under the statute [R. S. 3176, 3177, 3178], the owner of the building, plaintiff in error, Vvas not rendered unconditionally liable by simply furnishing him with the attested account of defendants in error. Such could not have been the legislative intent. There may be many such «'editors who thus deliver their accounts to the owner, and it may be that the amount he owes the contractor at the time of the delivery of the accounts would liquidate but an insignificant portion of each account. It would be absurd, under such circumstances, to say that the delivery of the attested accounts to the owner rendered him absolutely liable for the whole amount of such accounts. There must be an adjustment between the various claims as to the *pro rata*to be paid upon each; and it must be remembered that the contractor may have some defense to these accounts for material claimed to have been furnished to him. The constitution guaranties to him a hearing before his property can be taken. He is entitled *695to his day in court, and if he is to be cut off from making a defense by his failing to give the notice of contest, as provided in the statute, it certainly devolves upon the party seeking thus to hedge him about to allege and prove the facts necessary to that end. It will be observed that, by the provisions of the statute, if the contractor gives the notice of contest within ten days after the claims are delivered to him, then the owner becomes a stakeholder and must await the result of a litigation between the material men and the contractor. This shows of itself that the contractor is a necessary party, except it he in case where he has failed to give the notice of contest within the time prescribed by law. It is therefore clear that if the material man should desire to sue the owner without joining the contractor, he must allege the facts that show the contractor has no interest in the controversy. Upon the face of the plaintiff’s petition in this case the contractor Fristoe was a necessary party to the suit, and the court erred in not sustaining the special exceptions of appellant to the petition.

November 2, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning 
business be closed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 14.1**
**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENTAUDITORS**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statement on Form F-3 (FileNo. 333-13802) and Registration Statements on Form S-8(File Nos. 333-06850, 333-11384, 333-12326, 333-13224,333-13330, 333-13494, 333-105348, and 333-108869) pertaining tothe Executive Share Option Scheme, the 1997 Share Option Scheme,as amended, the 1997 Director Share Option Scheme and the 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan of IONA Technologies PLC, the 1997Stock Plan of Genesis Development Corporation, the Stock OptionPlan of Object-Oriented Concepts, Inc. and the 1999 Stock OptionPlan of Netfish Technologies, Inc., of our report datedJanuary 21, 2003, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of IONA Technologies PLC included in thisAnnual Report (Form 20-F) for the year endedDecember 31, 2003.
/s/ Ernst & Young
Ernst & YoungDublin, IrelandMay 11, 2004
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 of Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Larry  Hinson,  Chief  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,  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/  Larry K. Hinson
-------------------------------------
Larry Hinson, Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002


<PAGE>
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 55 

To disapprove a final rule of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to the 

importation of cattle and beef. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 3, 2007 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN (for herself and Mr. REHBERG) introduced the 

following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To disapprove a final rule of the Secretary of Agriculture 

relating to the importation of cattle and beef. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Sec4 retary of Agriculture relating to bovine spongiform 

5 encephalopathy, minimal-risk regions, and importation of 

6 live bovines and products derived from bovines (72 Fed. 

7 Reg. 53314 (2007)), and such rule shall have no force or 

8 effect. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS