Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action.
Another study notes that about 1.14 million patient-safety incidents occurred among the 37 million hospitalizations in the Medicare population over the years 2000–2002. Hospital costs associated with such medical errors were estimated at $324 million in October 2008 alone. [6] Approximately 17,000 malpractice cases are filed in the U.S. each ...
This program prompted many new nursing homes to be set up in the following years, although private nursing homes were already being built from the 1930s as a consequence of the Great Depression and the Social Security Act of 1935. Medicaid, the Nation's poverty program, often funds programs such as nursing beds as residents may be "impoverished ...
A man who once ran more than 100 nursing homes from an office over a New Jersey pizzeria has pleaded guilty in connection with what federal prosecutors called a $38 million payroll tax fraud scheme.
Although federal courts often hear tort cases arising out of common law or state statutes, there are relatively few tort claims that arise exclusively as a result of federal law. The most common federal tort claim is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 remedy for violation of one's civil rights under color of federal or state law, which can be used to sue ...
Obstruction of justice is an umbrella term covering a variety of specific crimes. [1] Black's Law Dictionary defines it as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice". [2] Obstruction has been categorized by various sources as a process crime, [3] a public-order crime, [4] [5] or a white-collar crime. [6]
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [1] This balancing test is often criticized as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner. [2] [3]
This case consolidated two Sixth Circuit cases in which Ohio employees, both "classified civil servants" under Ohio law and therefore could be terminated only for cause and with entitlement to post-termination administrative review, [1] were terminated without being afforded a pretermination hearing to respond to the charges: