Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Tomlin order permits either party to apply to court to enforce the terms of the order, which avoids the need to start fresh proceedings. The terms of the schedule do not form part of the court order and so may remain confidential, and they may include matters outside the jurisdiction of the court or the scope of the case in hand.
The order itself contains an agreement that the claim is stayed and no further action can be taken in court (except for referring a dispute in the implementation of the order to court, which is allowed). The order also deals with payment of costs, and payments of money out of court if any money is held by the court (as these are matters which ...
He has published more than 200 scientific journal articles related to anxiety disorders, cognitive behavioral therapy, and related topics. [10] He serves as a principal investigator for the National Institutes of Health, [11] and has been a member of their scientific review committees. Tolin has published five books.
Psychology Today content and its therapist directory are found in 20 countries worldwide. [3] Psychology Today's therapist directory is the most widely used [4] and allows users to sort therapists by location, insurance, types of therapy, price, and other characteristics. It also has a Spanish-language website.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions.The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual ...
Karyn Hascal, The Healing Place’s president and CEO, said she would never allow Suboxone in her treatment program because her 12-step curriculum is “a drug-free model. There’s kind of a conflict between drug-free and Suboxone.” For policymakers, denying addicts the best scientifically proven treatment carries no political cost.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!