text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. JAMES
C. MURRAY, Judge, presiding.
Plaintiffs, Edward and Clara Kolakowski, filed this medical malpractice action against two neurosurgeons, Dr. David C. Voris and Dr. K.S. Parameswar, and an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Leonard R. Smith. *fn1 A jury found all three doctors not liable for Edward Kolakowski's injuries. The trial court, having previously reserved ruling on Dr. Smith's motion for a directed verdict, then granted his motion. Subsequently, plaintiffs successfully moved the court to grant a new trial as to defendants Voris and Parameswar. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110A, par. 306), we granted the two neurosurgeons' petition for leave to appeal from that order. They contend on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial. Plaintiffs cross-appeal from the trial court's order granting a directed verdict in favor of the orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Smith. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm both of the trial court's orders.
This litigation has been pending since August of 1974 when plaintiffs filed their initial complaint. The record includes hundreds of pages of medical testimony, some of which we summarized in the prior appeal from defendant hospital's summary judgment. (Kolakowski v. Voris (1979), 76 Ill. App.3d 453, 395 N.E.2d 6 aff'd (1980), 83 Ill.2d 388, 415 N.E.2d 397.) Because we will focus on the legal standard for granting new trials and whether the trial court abused its discretion, we need not describe the evidence at length.
In the summer of 1973, Edward Kolakowski (plaintiff), *fn2 suffering severe pain in his left shoulder, entered Mercy Hospital for heat treatments. The pain persisted, however, and on August 15, 1973, Dr. Parameswar performed a neurological examination of plaintiff and took a myelogram of plaintiff's spine. The myelogram indicated that there was a defect between two cervical discs in plaintiff's spine, which put pressure on the nerve root. Dr. Parameswar told plaintiff he could choose between continuing the conservative treatments or undergoing surgery. He described the two possible surgical approaches and explained the risks involved. Drs. Parameswar and Voris both recommended that plaintiff undergo an anterior disc removal and interbody fusion.
On August 24, 1973, Drs. Voris and Parameswar operated on plaintiff. After they had removed the defective disc from plaintiff's spine, Dr. Smith inserted a bone plug into the space, to fuse with the cervical vertebrae, and closed the wound. Following the surgery, plaintiff's condition was monitored at frequent intervals. The first indication of possible complications occurred at 6 p.m., approximately eight hours after the surgery, when plaintiff complained that his right arm was weak and numb. He also said that he could not bend his legs. A 7:30 p.m. notation indicated that plaintiff was "shaky" and had vomited. At 10:45 p.m., plaintiff had a temperature of 102. He could bend his right leg slightly. Hospital personnel unsuccessfully attempted to reach Dr. Voris. Thereafter, plaintiff's condition apparently fluctuated. On August 26 he experienced spasms in his legs. At times there was some indication that he could bend his legs slightly, which would signify improvement. However, the doctors concluded that his recovery was not proceeding as expected. Accordingly, Dr. Voris ordered a second myelogram, which was performed on August 27. It revealed a complete obstruction between the sixth and seventh cervical vertebrae. Defendants immediately performed a decompressive laminectomy on plaintiff from the back of the neck. During this operation the doctors removed fragments of extruded disc material from the fifth and sixth cervical levels. The post-operative report stated that there was no evidence of spinal cord compression, and the cause of plaintiff's difficulties remained unknown. After this second operation, plaintiff was still unable to move his extremities. His condition was diagnosed as an impaired function of the cervical spinal cord.
Plaintiff received physical therapy and other treatment as an outpatient, but his pain continued, as did his limited ability to move his arms and legs. Gradually, however, plaintiff was able to assume some of the functions necessary for daily living. He could feed himself with his right hand. He could also walk around at home, although he needed his wheelchair or walker outside the home.
In 1976, plaintiff went to California to be examined by Dr. J. DeWitt Fox, who agreed to testify for plaintiff in the lawsuit pending against defendants. In October of 1977, he operated on plaintiff's back. After two operations, plaintiff was required to use a permanent catheter for the first time. He also suffered a substantial loss of function in his deltoid muscle, causing his right arm to hang limply by his side.
At the trial, Dr. Fox testified as one of plaintiff's expert witnesses. He stated that his surgery was aimed at plaintiff's "original" problem rather than an attempt to correct anything the defendants had done. According to Dr. Fox, however, defendants' surgery had not conformed with the proper standard of care. Dr. Fox believed that plaintiff's problem was caused by disc fragments driven into the spinal cord and up against the nerve root at the time of the August 24, 1973, surgery. He hypothesized that defendants had failed to remove all disc fragments during the anterior dissectomy. Then, when Dr. Smith inserted the bone plug, disc material apparently was forced up against the spinal cord, causing the plaintiff's subsequent quadraparesis. Dr. Fox acknowledged, however, that the actual disc material that defendants found during the second operation could not have caused plaintiff's condition because of its location. He assumed that some disc fragments remained in the surgical site, and had been forced against the spinal cord. Regarding the matter of plaintiff's post-operative care, Dr. Fox testified that defendants should have undertaken immediate exploratory surgery on plaintiff following the first operation, rather than wait three days. *fn3
Dr. Adolph Gerol, plaintiff's second expert, also stated his opinion that the defendants had deviated from proper surgical standards.
The two defendant neurosurgeons testified at length regarding the operations. They removed the defective disc and inspected the surgical site, finding no disc material. Because they initially operated from the front of the neck, they could not see the spinal canal and cord; this view was obstructed by the longitudinal ligament which forms a "curtain" in front of the spinal cord. The doctors testified that this ligament was intact, signifying that no disc fragments from the first operation could have penetrated it and thereby pass into the spinal canal to lodge against the spinal cord. Further, the doctors testified that during the second operation, performed from the back of plaintiff's neck, they found no disc fragments compressing the cord. The fragments they did find were in a location where they could not reach the spinal cord.
Dr. Smith, the orthopedic defendant, corroborated the neurosurgeons' testimony that the surgical site was clean before he inserted the bone plug to complete the first operation. The X rays of the surgical site revealed a complete and successful fusion.
The neurosurgeons suggested that, since the second exploratory operation indicated that there was no spinal cord damage (which apparently would have caused immediate physical symptoms), plaintiff's post-operative condition could have been caused by a blood clot which blocked the flow of blood to the spinal cord, causing plaintiff's pain. Such a condition, neither detected nor anticipated, would have developed in the hours following the surgery. Plaintiff's experts disagreed with this theory, stating that plaintiff's symptoms were inconsistent with the blood clot theory.
Defendants' expert witness, Dr. Oscar Sugar, testified that the surgeons had acted at all times in accordance with the proper standard of care and that plaintiff's condition was medically, surgically, and anatomically incapable of being caused in the manner suggested by plaintiff's experts. Dr. Sugar testified that the bone plug used in the fusion could not have produced such force as to drive disc material into the spinal cord, even if such material were present in the spinal canal at the time of the operation.
The trial court based its decision to grant plaintiff a new trial on two grounds: (1) the prejudicial closing argument of counsel for defendant Voris; and (2) the extensive cross-examination of Dr. Fox, which dwelt on his medical treatment of plaintiff. In urging us to reverse the trial court's order, defendants contend that the court used the wrong legal standard in assessing the alleged trial errors. They argue that error sufficient to precipitate a new trial must be, in effect, "reversible" error. In contrast, plaintiff would characterize the standard as "potentially prejudicial" error.
Before we discuss the two bases for the trial court's decision, we must evaluate defendants' view of the applicable law. They maintain that if a jury's verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the trial court errs in granting a new trial. By extension, they argue that a trial court's only proper basis for granting a new trial is that the verdict is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence. In support of this proposition, they cite Banwart v. Okesson (1980), 83 Ill. App.3d 222, 403 N.E.2d 1234. In Banwart, an appeal from the denial of a new trial, the court stated, "A motion for a new trial is properly denied if the verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence * * *." 83 Ill. App.3d 222, 227, 403 N.E.2d 1234, 1238.
• 1 However accurate this quotation may be, it does not necessarily follow that a motion for a new trial should never be granted as long as the verdict is supported by the evidence. The flaw in this proposition is that it ignores the other main reason for granting a new trial — that the jury's verdict was influenced by "passion or prejudice." (See Torrez v. Raag (1976), 43 Ill. App.3d 779, 782, 357 N.E.2d 632.) It may well be, as defendants imply, that the likelihood of a court's finding error sufficiently prejudicial to justify a new trial will increase where the facts are "close." Certainly, if evidence supporting a verdict seems overwhelming, some errors may be deemed harmless because of the probability that the jury decided the case on the evidence. (See, e.g., Houck v. Martin (1980), 82 Ill. App.3d 205, 402 N.E.2d 421 (trial court's definition of "loan," although unnecessary, did not cause reversible error because there was no indication that the jury was confused by it); Crump v. Universal Safety Equipment Co. (1979), 79 Ill. App.3d 202, 398 N.E.2d 188 (various alleged errors, including remarks of counsel, did not amount to reversible error).) Conversely, if the case is so close on its facts that "the jury might have decided either way, any substantial error which might have tipped the scales in favor of the successful party calls for reversal." Both v. Nelson (1964), 31 Ill.2d 511, 514, 202 N.E.2d 494, 496. *fn4
That there may be a correlation between the weight of evidence in a particular case and the perceived magnitude of the trial errors, however, does not persuade us to adopt defendants' theory that a court must make a threshold "finding" that the evidence is close before it can evaluate the alleged errors. Indeed, this premise seemingly begs the question: it presupposes that no error will be deemed prejudicial unless the case is a "close" one. Such a notion has no basis in the law or in logic. When a new trial is ordered because of errors in the original proceedings, the court is concerned with the fairness of the judicial process. See Alley v. Champion (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 878, 394 N.E.2d 735 (net effect of errors was that the jury's attention was diverted from the chief issue of liability on the facts, which deprived plaintiff of a fair trial).
• 2, 3 Further, we must emphasize the distinction between the trial court's discretion in granting a new trial and the appellate court's more limited power of review. It is true that both the trial court and the appellate court owe great deference to a jury's determination of contested factual issues. As we stated in Torrez v. Raag (1976), 43 Ill. App.3d 779, 782, 357 N.E.2d 632, 634, "Jury determinations can be set aside only when the trial court is clearly satisfied that they were occasioned by passion or prejudice or found to be wholly unwarranted from the manifest weight of the evidence." Consequently, when a post-trial motion for a new trial is made, on grounds of trial error, the trial judge must determine, from his own observations, whether the verdict was tainted by "passion or prejudice." The appellate court, in reviewing this decision, must not reverse it absent a clear abuse of discretion, affirmatively shown. (Magnani v. Trogi (1966), 70 Ill. App.2d 216, 220, 218 N.E.2d 21, 23-24.) While there must be "some error" appearing in the record as the grounds for a new trial, the trial court is in the superior position to weigh the effect of such error on the jury. (Turner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1976), 35 Ill. App.3d 331, 341 N.E.2d 488 (appellate court affirmed order granting new trial because it had not found the record to be free from all "potentially prejudicial error" and could not say the trial judge had abused his discretion).) Therefore, in reviewing the record and the briefs of counsel, we must accord proper deference to the trial court's assessment of the errors.
Guided by these general principles we next consider the trial court's specific reasons for granting a new trial in this case. The court held,
"Because of the improper argument of counsel for Voris and Parameswar, the court's failure to caution counsel or to instruct the jury to specifically disregard the argument, and the court's error in permitting testimony indicating malpractice on the part of Fox in his treatment subsequent to the original treatment to relieve the conditions flowing from defendants' surgery, and argument based on such testimony, the court finds that it must grant the plaintiff's motion for a new trial."
The challenged portion of defense counsel's closing argument follows:
"Mr. Fuller: But if this jury as a cross-section of this community is going to respond to this type of evidence and this type of case and subscribe to the Dr. Foxes and Dr. Gerols and ignore and cast aside the clear and convincing evidence of Dr. Sugar, if that's the state of the art, no neurosurgeon can be asked to assume such risks again.
Mr. Maddux: Objection, your Honor. That's an improper argument.
Mr. Fuller: It's not improper at all, Counsel.
The Court: I'll sustain the objection. Objection sustained.
Mr. Fuller: There is no way that this jury can impose the burden of all surgical risks on the surgeon and keep surgeons working.
Mr. Maddux: I make the same objection. It's an improper argument.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Fuller: These solutions to human ailments are developing and growing; knowledge is increasing. You can't set it back."
The trial court agreed with plaintiff that Panelle v. Chicago Transit Authority (1964), 31 Ill.2d 560, 202 N.E.2d 484, and Torrez v. Raag support the contention that this argument is improper and entitles plaintiff to a new trial. In Panelle, the attorney for the defendant municipal corporation alluded to other claims asserted against defendant and its ability to pay the claims. Plaintiff's objection to the remarks was sustained, but the court did not instruct the jury to disregard them. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the order granting a new trial, noting that the trial court was in the superior position to appraise the effect of the remarks.
In Torrez, a medical malpractice action, defendant's attorney began to comment on the adverse affects the lawsuit would have upon his client's reputation and his ability to practice medicine. The lawyer's remarks were interrupted by an objection, which was sustained. After the jury returned a verdict for defendant physician, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial, taking into account the weight of the evidence, the attitude and demeanor of the witnesses and the closing arguments of counsel. The appellate court affirmed the new trial order, noting that although plaintiff's objection was sustained and she had failed to move for a mistrial, the defense counsel's remarks had injected a prejudicial element into the case. Torrez, 43 Ill. App.3d 779, 783, 357 N.E.2d 632, 635.
• 4 In the pending case, the trial court found these cases persuasive. The court further noted that defense counsel had persisted in his line of argument, despite two objections. In addition, the challenged remarks were made toward the end of the closing argument and "stood without specific admonishment by the court." We cannot say the court clearly abused its discretion in determining that the remarks were prejudicial. The comments imply that the effect of a verdict favoring plaintiff would be the imposition of every conceivable surgical risk upon surgeons, which would force them out of work. This injects an improper element into the case, which could have influenced the jury.
We need not determine whether the improper remarks could constitute the sole basis for granting a new trial, however, because the trial court clearly based its decision on the effect of the closing arguments in conjunction with other errors.
The second major reason the trial court cited for its order involves the testimony of Dr. Fox, plaintiff's expert. In essence, the trial judge decided that the cross-examination of Dr. Fox and the arguments based thereon confused the jury because of the implication that Dr. Fox might have committed malpractice during his treatment of plaintiff. The court stated that it "permitted such testimony because the Court at the time felt that the defendants could not be held responsible for the injuries that flowed from that surgery." The court acknowledged, however, that it had erred in this respect because "Illinois case law and well-settled court law hold that one who receives an injury that is aggravated by the malpractice of a physician is entitled to recover not only for the original injury but for any aggravation of the original injury caused by a later physician's malpractice flowing from the original injury."
The confusion over this issue centers on Dr. Fox' role in this litigation. Defendants had made a motion in limine to limit him to testifying as an expert witness and thus to exclude his testimony regarding plaintiff's subjective complaints. Plaintiff objected and the court denied defendant's motion. Consequently, Dr. Fox was also permitted to testify as a treating physician. At one point his testimony indicated that his surgery was aimed at remedying plaintiff's nerve root problem, which was part of plaintiff's original condition, and not at correcting defendants' surgery. He also testified, however, that the purpose of his surgery was to alleviate plaintiff's pain. This excruciating pain, plaintiff argues, was caused by defendants' negligent surgery. As an apparent result of Dr. Fox' surgery, plaintiff lost the use of his right arm and was required for the first time to use a permanent indwelling catheter for his bladder problems.
• 5 The evidence regarding Dr. Fox' treatment may have shifted the jury's attention away from the separate question of defendants' liability. Because of the emphasis on Dr. Fox' treatment, the jury might have begun to perceive of Dr. Fox as the "guilty" party. Defendants' counsel argued to the jury that Dr. Fox' surgery "produced nothing but a deficit for Mr. Kolakowski" and that "the tragedy in this case" was that plaintiff would have the jury believe that defendants were responsible for the effects of Dr. Fox' surgery. In view of the trial court's admitted misconception of the aggravation of injuries principle, we cannot say that Dr. Fox' testimony and the attendant arguments could not have produced error. As the trial court realized during the post-trial hearing, a person who is injured through another's negligence can recover from the original tortfeasor not only for the original injury but also for any aggravation of that injury caused by a physician's subsequent malpractice, assuming that the injured party exercised ordinary care in selecting the physician. Gertz v. Campbell (1973), 55 Ill.2d 84, 302 N.E.2d 40.
Defendants contend, however, that this rule only involves the policy against mitigation of a tortfeasor's damages for the subsequent aggravation of plaintiff's injuries. *fn5 Because the jurors found no liability, they did not reach the damages issue and therefore the cross-examination of Dr. Fox could not have prejudiced plaintiff. Moreover, defendants contend that since plaintiff raised the matter of Dr. Fox' surgery on direct examination and urged the court to allow his testimony as a treating physician, plaintiff cannot now object to defendants' responsive cross examination. In addition, defendants argue that the results of Dr. Fox' surgery were properly brought out for the purpose of pinpointing weaknesses in his testimony and demonstrating possible bias.
We agree that defendants had the right to cross-examine Dr. Fox regarding his treatment of plaintiff and to impeach his credibility. We do not believe the trial court intended to imply that evidence of Dr. Fox' treatment was irrelevant or inadmissible. We believe, however, that the trial judge's admitted confusion over the applicable law concerning the subsequent aggravation of a party's injuries is more than a minor technicality; it underscores the likelihood that the jury was also confused as to the applicable law. If the jury perceived Dr. Fox as a wrongdoer it may have acquitted the defendants on that basis. Notwithstanding defendants' contention that the evidence was overwhelmingly in their favor, we reiterate that in ruling on a motion for a new trial, the court must try to ensure that the verdict was not infected by improper and prejudicial elements. The crucial point that the trial judge implicitly recognized is that, had he not misconceived the pertinent law, the trial might have taken a different course. It is quite possible that different jury instructions would have been given. *fn6 We hesitate to override the trial judge's decision to correct its own errors in these circumstances.
As a final consideration we note that the trial judge was greatly concerned with making a reasoned decision in this matter. He reviewed the extensive briefs and arguments of counsel and also conducted his own research of the law. We conclude that he did not abuse his discretion in granting plaintiff a new trial.
We next consider plaintiff's cross-appeal from the order granting Dr. Smith's motion for a directed verdict. Under the pertinent standard, judgment for Dr. Smith should not have been entered unless all the evidence, when viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, so overwhelmingly favored Dr. Smith that no contrary verdict could ever stand. Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co. (1967), 37 Ill.2d 494, 224 N.E.2d 504. *fn7
• 6 After reviewing the record we cannot agree with plaintiff that there was sufficient evidence against Dr. Smith to preclude the court from directing the verdict. Initially, we note that Dr. Smith's responsibilities as the orthopedic surgeon are distinguishable from the duties of the two neurosurgeons. (See Burrow v. Widder (1977), 52 Ill. App.3d 1017, 368 N.E.2d 443.) Drs. Voris and Parameswar removed the disc and were responsible for clearing the operating site. Dr. Smith's participation in the operation was limited to inserting the bone dowel into place. Therefore, his liability to plaintiff depends on the evidence relating to his standard of care as an orthopedic surgeon and any indication that he breached the standard, causing plaintiff's injuries.
Plaintiff's entire case against Dr. Smith consists of a few statements by Drs. Fox and Gerol that we believe fail to establish that Dr. Smith breached any standard of care. Dr. Fox testified that if disc fragments were in the surgical site, Dr. Smith deviated from the standard of care in inserting the bone dowel.
This supposition is unsupported by any evidence in the record. In fact, four people who were present during the August 24, 1973, operation — Drs. Smith, Voris, Parameswar, and an anesthesiologist — testified that they did not observe any disc fragments in the operating site. This testimony was not rebutted. As Dr. Fox conceded, an orthopedic surgeon who knows that neurosurgeons have prepared the site and who sees for himself that the site appears clean has a right to rely on the thoroughness of the neurosurgeon's preparation of that site. Moreover, as Dr. Fox further admitted, on cross-examination, even if disc fragments were present but in a location where they were not visible to Dr. Smith, he could proceed with his part of the operation, relying on the neurosurgeons, and still be conforming to good medical practice.
Dr. Gerol, plaintiff's rebuttal witness, did not add any substance to the allegations against Dr. Smith. He admitted, ultimately, that he had no opinion as to whether Dr. Smith breached any standard of care, although he stated that he, personally, would not rely on neurosurgeons in such an operation. Instead, he would demand assurances from the neurosurgeons that they had removed the disc material.
We believe that the testimony of Drs. Fox and Gerol clearly falls short of establishing that Dr. Smith deviated from any standard of care. The record reveals that his part of the operation, the bone fusion, was completed successfully. Notwithstanding plaintiff's theory that disc fragments were driven into his spinal cord where Dr. Smith inserted the bone plug, plaintiff's experts essentially admitted that he could rely on the neurosurgeons' preparation of the operation site. We therefore conclude that plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of professional negligence against Dr. Smith, and the verdict was properly directed in his favor. See Burrow v. Widder.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
LORENZ and MEJDA, JJ., concur.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Leather bound
1980 · Norwalk, CT
by Sophocles; Francis Storr (Translator)
Norwalk, CT: Easton Press, 1980. Collector's Edition. Leather bound. Demetrios Galanis. 159pp. Quarto [26.5 cm] Turquoise blue leather with raised bands, a gilt stamped title on the spine, and gilt stamped decorative designs on the spine and covers. All edges gilt. Pale peach moire endsheets. Silk ribbon page marker. With the text in Greek and English. One of the 100 Greatest Books Ever Written. With an introduction by Thornton Wilder. Illustrated with wood engravings by Demetrios Galanis. (Inventory #: 46743)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
You have no items to compare.
Product Description
Seanol plyphenols are called phlorotannins according to chemical structure. They have skeleton structure made of two or more phenol rings. These phenol rings are able to attack toxic free radicals in the body. These phlorotannins have numerous phenol rings that is capable of attacking multiple free radicals as supported by ORAC, which is a laboratory technique used to measure the ability of a substance to detoxify free radicals
Additional Information
|Doctors Best
|Serving Size:
|3 veggie cap
|Per Container:
|90 veggie caps
|Ingredients (Amount Per Serving)
|1200mg Ecklonia Cava Extract (Seanol)
|Other Ingredients
|Vegetable Capsule, Rice Powder, Magnesium Stearate (vegetable source)
|Take one to three capsules two times daily nefore meals, or as directed by a healthcare practioner. Do not exceed 6 capsules in a 24 hour period.
You may also be interested in the following product(s)
ALRI Pro-Anabol - 60 Capsules
Regular Price: $73.91
Special Price: $49.27As low as: $46.81
Fusion Health Pheninol - 90 Capsules
Regular Price: $59.13
Special Price: $36.95As low as: $34.49
AllMax Allflex Joint - 60 Capsules
Regular Price: $38.18
Special Price: $28.33As low as: $19.58
Jarrow Formulas Bile Acid Factors 333 mg - 90 Capsules
Regular Price: $44.34
Special Price: $27.09As low as: $23.40


text:
Is MCC Security incorrect or missing key business information? Update your Hotfrog listing today.
Contact details
Are these details correct?
Hotfrog SouthAfrica provides information regarding MCC Security in Johannesburg Gauteng. MCC Security is located at 29 Cooper St, Johannesburg Gauteng 2198 and provides Security Systems services. Contact them on 011 615 5000 or by visiting them on their website http://www.mccsecuritysolutions.co.za.
Is MCC Security in 29 Cooper St, Johannesburg Gauteng 2198 your business? Claim your listing and attract more leads by adding more content, photos and other business details.
We have more Security Systems services in Johannesburg Gauteng available on Hotfrog SouthAfrica. You can update your search for Johannesburg Security Systems by location, keyword or service options.
Sterling House 131 Pritchard St Johannesburg Gauteng 2001
527 JUKES ST Johannesburg Gauteng 2094
21 Mandy Rd Johannesburg Gauteng 2091
1 Scraper Road Johannesburg Gauteng 2001
Small Business Hub
Sharing tips, ideas and advice to help grow your small business.
Your profile without ads
Have you considered upgrading to Hotfrog AdVantage? No competitor advertising means exclusive focus on your business. You take centre stage.
Create your free Hotfrog business profile
Follow Hotfrog on:
Share on:
Hotfrog Small Business Hub


text:
Best natalie portman sunglasses pokies HQ Wallpaper
Tags:natalie portman sunglasses pokies
Category: Celebrity & Actress
At times, positive natalie portman sunglasses pokies screen background can help for you to pass through your unhappy day. The unusual, brilliantly tinted natalie portman sunglasses pokies screen background have an affect on your mind and makes pleasure for you to be pleasant. There are to many suggestions in wallpaper ilustrations, but you can take any as claimed by your attitude and rapture. You need to receive screen background, ready for cruel days or really tearful afternoons and receive selection of sense transforming wallpaper ilustrations to have for your computer monitor? We have abnormal amount of the best, the best resolution wallpaper ilustrations to recommend from so that you maybe will be very curious in.
This free wallpaper for your desktop. It has been viewed 0 times.
Added: 1126 days ago, wallpaper format is jpg and aspect ratio is 21:25.
Wallpaper size is 321 KB with 1638x1950.
The display resolution standard of computer or handheld screens for this wallpaper is:
Wallpaper source: N/A
To Download or Set this Free natalie portman sunglasses pokies Wallpaper as the Desktop Background Image for your Laptop, Macintosh or Personal Computer, click on the wallpaper and you will see it in original size, then by the type of your browser choose:
Google Chrome: right click on wallpaper and select the "Save image as".
Mozilla FireFox: right click on wallpaper and select the "Set As Desktop Background" or "Save Image As".Set as background or Save picture as.
1) Right click on wallpaper and select the "Save Image As"
2) Right click on the saved file and click Set As Desktop Background.
Mac OS:
Right click on wallpaper and select Use Image as Desktop Picture.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
July 13, 2012
T.T., PETITIONERv.DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, RESPONDENT
Submitted: June 8, 2012
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
T.T. petitions for review of the Final Order of the Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare (Department) upholding an order entered by the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (Bureau) denying his request to expunge an indicated report of child abuse filed by Crawford County Children and Youth Services (CYS) for abusing his stepdaughter, A.B. Because we recently adopted the clear and convincing evidence standard to maintain statutorily-designated information from an indicated report on the ChildLine Registry in G.V. v. Department of Public Welfare, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 125 C.D. 2011, filed July 12, 2012), we vacate and remand this case to the Department for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
A.B. is a female child born to D.B. and R.T. on December 4, 1988. T.T. married R.T. and began residing with her and A.B. in 1994. On March 3, 2009, CYS received an oral report alleging that T.T. sexually abused A.B. between the years 2000 and 2007.*fn1 CYS conducted an interview of A.B. on April 24, 2009, during which she stated that T.T. abused her from the time she was 12 years old until she was 16 or 17 years old. After its investigation, CYS, pursuant to the Child Protective Services Law (Law),*fn2 filed an indicated report of child abuse*fn3 naming T.T. as the perpetrator. T.T. requested that the indicated report be expunged and filed a request for an administrative hearing.
Before the ALJ, A.B. testified that T.T. took her out alone on back roads on several occasions to teach her how to drive when she was between 12 and 16 years old. She testified that the first incident of abuse occurred when she was driving and T.T. instructed her to pull the vehicle over to the side of the road.
After T.T. and A.B. exited the vehicle, T.T. grabbed A.B.'s hand and placed it on his penis. A.B. testified that it was common for T.T. to lift up her shirt and touch her breasts with his hands and mouth during these driving lessons, at home, and at T.T.'s car dealership. She further testified that in the summer of 2006, T.T. pulled down her bathing suit and placed his mouth on her vagina. A.B. also stated that when she needed money, T.T. would put money down the front of her shirt and into her bra. A.B. testified that when she was 15 years old, after an argument with T.T., she told her mother that she hated T.T. and would tell her why after she turned 18 and moved out of the house.
Laura Tunstall (Tunstall), a CYS caseworker, testified that she received a report of suspected abuse with regard to A.B. on March 3, 2009. She stated that she investigated the matter and that A.B. was interviewed at CYS by a forensic interviewer on April 24, 2009. Tunstall testified that she also interviewed T.T. and R.T. and conferred with Trooper Brian Ford of the Pennsylvania State Police during her investigation. She testified that T.T. denied most of A.B.'s allegations during the interview but admitted to smacking A.B.'s buttocks and putting money down her shirt as a joke. Tunstall testified that R.T. corroborated those statements when she was interviewed. On cross-examination, Tunstall explained that she had difficulty contacting A.B. to schedule an interview with her, but that the investigation was initiated within 24 hours of CYS's receipt of the report when an on-call worker telephoned A.B.'s family and spoke with them.
Testifying on behalf of T.T. were his two sons, his wife, R.T., and a family friend, R.K. T.T.'s sons testified that they never witnessed any inappropriate contact between T.T. and A.B, and that A.B. never made any complaints to them about T.T. They also testified that T.T. did not begin teaching A.B. how to drive until A.B. was 15 years old. R.T. also testified that she never witnessed any inappropriate contact between T.T. and A.B, stating that A.B. never appeared to be upset after returning home from her driving lessons with T.T. R.T. testified that she witnessed T.T. put money in A.B.'s shirt but that neither she nor A.B. felt that contact was inappropriate. She confirmed A.B.'s testimony about the time A.B. told her that she hated T.T., and also testified that A.B. telephoned her on December 23, 2008, and disclosed that T.T. had been inappropriately touching her since she was 12 years old. However, R.T. stated that she did not believe A.B.'s allegations. R.K., the family friend, testified that A.B. told her at a party in June or July of 2006 that T.T. had sexually abused her, but that A.B. recanted the allegation shortly thereafter and indicated that she just wanted attention. R.K. also testified that she did not believe A.B.'s allegation because A.B. had a history of lying.
T.T. admitted to taking A.B. out alone on back roads when she was 15 years old in order to teach her how to drive, but denied inappropriately touching her or placing her hand on his penis. He also admitted to putting money in the top of A.B.'s shirt on two or three occasions when A.B. was home from college, and to disciplining A.B. on occasion when she was younger, but denied ever having any inappropriate contact with A.B.
The ALJ found the testimony of A.B. to be credible, noting that it was "straight forward, detailed and.consistent with the initial report which was received by ChildLine, the interview with [CYS], and the disclosure to her mother on December 23, 2008." (ALJ's June 10, 2010 Adjudication at 8). The ALJ also found CYS caseworker Tunstall's testimony relating to her investigation to be credible. With regard to T.T.'s witnesses, the ALJ found the testimony of R.T. as well as that of T.T.'s sons to be credible as it related to never witnessing inappropriate contact between T.T. and A.B., but noted that this was not unusual because A.B. stated that she was alone with T.T. when the alleged incidents occurred. Moreover, the ALJ found that R.T.'s testimony that A.B. told her she would explain why she hated T.T. after she turned 18 was credible and that it corroborated A.B.'s own testimony. The ALJ also found R.K.'s testimony regarding A.B.'s disclosure of sexual abuse by T.T. to be credible, but found "the fact [A.B.] disclosed and then recanted allegations of sexual abuse at a party does not mean the allegation was false, and does not discount her credibility with reports to [CYS] or her testimony at the hearing." Id. The ALJ found T.T.'s testimony regarding the abuse allegations to be not credible, concluded that there was substantial evidence to support a finding of abuse and recommended that T.T.'s appeal be denied. The Bureau adopted the ALJ's recommendation in its entirety, and T.T. requested reconsideration. After granting T.T.'s request for reconsideration, the Secretary entered a Final Order upholding the Bureau's order. This appeal by T.T. followed.*fn4
On appeal, T.T. initially claims that CYS lacked jurisdiction to conduct an investigation and file a report indicating child abuse because A.B. was not a child at the time she disclosed the purported abuse. T.T. failed to raise this issue in the agency proceedings or in his petition for review, and even if we agreed with his contention that this is a jurisdictional question which can be raised at any time, his jurisdictional argument would still fail. Among other things, "child abuse" is defined as "an act.by a perpetrator which causes.sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child under 18 years of age." 23 Pa. C.S. §6303(b)(1)(ii). Under the Law, then, it is not the age of the victim when the report is made but the age of the victim at the time the purported abuse occurred that is relevant. In this case, while A.B. was over 18 when she reported the abuse, what is crucial is that the abuse occurred while she was still a child.
T.T. next alleges that CYS did not conduct its investigation in accordance with the requirements of the Law, which he contends renders the indicated abuse report invalid. Specifically, he argues that CYS did not interview A.B. until 51 days after it received the abuse report despite the requirement in Section 6368(a) of the Law that the county agency shall commence an investigation within 24 hours of receipt of the abuse report.*fn5 Additionally, T.T. argues that CYS was required to complete and send the Child Protective Service Investigation Report (CY-48) to ChildLine within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the initial report, but did not do so until 58 days after the initial report.*fn6 Those delays, T.T. alleges, suggest that A.B. was not in need of protective services and warranted dismissal of the complaint. Ignoring that the investigation was begun within 24 hours, while there are time periods contained in the regulations directing
CYS to take certain actions within a certain time, the only time period that requires expunction is contained in 55 Pa. Code §3490.67(b)(3), which requires a report of abuse to ChildLine within 60 days. Because the required report was filed 58 days after the complaint, that provision has been satisfied.
Finally, T.T. claims that substantial evidence is a constitutionally inadequate standard in child abuse expungement cases. Historically, in expungement proceedings, the Department has had the burden to show that the indicated report was accurate by substantial evidence.*fn7 Bucks County Children and Youth Social Services Agency v. Department of Public Welfare, 616 A.2d 170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). However, in the recently argued G.V. v. Department of Public Welfare, we held that the use of this standard to maintain statutorily-designated information from an indicated report on the ChildLine Registry did not adequately protect the rights of the accused and adopted the clear and convincing evidence standard for those proceedings. Clear and convincing evidence is the highest burden in our civil law and requires that the fact-finder be able to come to clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise fact in issue. Suber v. Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, 885 A.2d 678, 682 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). To meet that standard, it necessarily means that the witnesses must be found to be credible, that the facts to which they have testified are remembered distinctly, and that their testimony is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable either a judge or jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. Id. Here, an order maintaining the indicated child abuse report summary on the ChildLine Registry against T.T., a Pennsylvania public school teacher, results in a significant impact not only on his personal and professional reputation, but also on his ability to continue practicing his profession. Such an impact demonstrates the need to apply the stricter clear and convincing evidence standard in expungement proceedings.*fn8
Accordingly, because the Secretary may have weighed the testimony differently under the clear and convincing evidence standard, we vacate and remand this case to the Department to issue a new determination as to whether the evidence was clear and convincing that expungement of the indicated child abuse report summary from the ChildLine Registry was not warranted.
T.T., : Petitioner : : v. : Department of Public Welfare, : Respondent :
No. 1890 C.D. 2011 :
AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2012, this matter is vacated and remanded to the Department of Public Welfare, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, to issue a new determination as to whether the evidence was clear and convincing that expungement of the indicated child abuse report summary from the ChildLine Registry was not warranted.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
This Independent practice are seeking for a Dental Hygienist to start immediately at this practice in Berkshire on a permanent basis.
This is a Part Time role, working 2 days per week.
Candidates will be working without any dental assistance for 30 minute appointments, carrying out all private treatments.
They are looking to pay a percentage per patient. This will determine on the treatment type and cost, which will be confirmed at the interview stage.
Fully computerised practice using R4 with digital xrays at the practice
Successful candidates must possess the Dental Hygiene Diploma / Degree to work as a Hygienist in the UK. The successful dental hygienist will be responsible for cleaning and polishing teeth, instructing patients in good oral hygiene habits and after care for dental treatments rendered, and providing other preventative dental care, and work chair side as needed, with the dentist during examinations and treatments.
The dental hygienist may also:
•take X-rays
•make moulds for crowns and dental prosthetics
•remove sutures
•polish fillings and other metal restorations
•take and record medical history and medication lists
Parking close by to the practice, in the practice only limited parking spaces.
Train station/Buses very close by.
Successful applicants will need to be either registered with the General Dental Council or possess equivalent qualifications to acquire GDC registration and be eligible to work in the UK. The practice is supportive of their Clinical team in undertaking additional CPD related activities which are now a requirement by law.
For more information contact Natasha and quote reference DEN-31998
Call us on 01332 609318
Email us at [email protected]
View more information at http://www.medicruit.co.uk/positiondetails.aspx?id=31998
Hygienist – Berkshire
Posted by Medicruit on 8 April 2015
Reference: 31998Apply Back


text:
Bungasari Flour Mills Indonesia PT
Tax Staff
Deskripsi Pekerjaan
- Monthly Withholding tax calculation and report (Art 25, 21, 23/26, 4 (2) )
- Monthly VAT tax calculation and report
- Assist corporate income tax calculation (Art 29)
- Reconcile Withholding report and GL
- Reconcile VAT report (tax invoice) and GL
- Submission of tax report to tax office
- Assist tax audit process
- At least Diploma III / Bachelor Degree from Accounting or tax
- Minimum 1 years tax experience
- Preferable have sertification brevet AB
- Required skill(s): eSPT, efaktur and ebilling.
- Able to work under pressure
- Able to work with minimum supervisory
- Honest, disciplined and responsible
- Meticulous, good analytical skill
Ke halaman yang merekrut lowongan ini
Data pekerjaan
|DKI Jakarta
|Manufaktur / Produksi
|Bungasari Flour Mills Indonesia PT lihat lowongan lihat gaji lihat profil
Deskripsi Perusahaan
Bungasari Flour Mills exists to enliven the flour mills industry in Indonesia by prioritizing the best quality and product variations that meet the constantly increasing demand of the market.
The expertise and experience of FKS (Indonesia), Malayan Flour Mills (Malaysia), and Toyota Tsusho (Japan) are to be found in the form of best technology within the Bungasari creation process. We are adopting the most advanced system and technologies, which enable us to present best quality products with consistent and prompt delivery for the market.
We believe in contributing to a healthier Indonesia by providing high quality flour which is produced through Comprehensive research and development, world-class research facilities, latest production techniques, and most importantly, the best wheat grains.
Mengapa bergabung dengan kami?
Creating Job Opportunities that can elevate nation to a better future is truly our commitment. We are one of the leading wheat flour producers in Indonesia. Highly competitive remuneration system and promising career building are certainties that we can provide as a company that prioritizes innovation, morale and integrity. Build your professional career by taking part in the journey of PT Bungasari Flour Mills Indonesia, as the joint multinational company that is growing rapidly. Our Vision: To be Indonesia's most prominent flour milling business Our Mission: Bringing a better life to all by creating value for our customers Our Value: Innovation, Quality, Passion, Commitment & Integrity
Ke halaman yang merekrut lowongan ini
lowongan kerja rekomendasi
Tax Staff
Staff Pajak
Tax Consultant
Tax Staff
Junior Tax Consultant
Junior Tax Staff
Junior Transfer Pricing Specialist


text:
Lender Processing Services (NYSE:LPS)
Q4 2012 Earnings Call
February 8, 2013 10:00 a.m. ET
Nancy Murphy - VP, IR
Hugh Harris - President and CEO
Tom Schilling - CFO and EVP
Darrin Peller - Barclays Capital
Carter Malloy - Stephens Inc.
Paul Thomas - Goldman Sachs
Glenn Greene - Oppenheimer
Greg Smith - Agee Sterne, Agee & Leach
Good day everyone, and welcome to the Lender Processing Services' Fourth Quarter 2012 Earnings Conference. As a reminder, today's conference is being recorded. Your participation on this call is implied consent. If you do not wish to be recorded, then please disconnect at this time. Now I would like to turn the conference over to Nancy Murphy. Please go ahead, ma'am.
Nancy Murphy
Good morning, and welcome to Lender Processing Services' fourth quarter 2012 earnings conference call. Hugh Harris, CEO and Tom Schilling, CFO are with us today to review results and answer your questions. To allow time to field questions from participants, we ask that you please limit yourself to two questions and then re-enter the queue if you like to follow up. Before we get started, I would like to remind you that our earnings release and the slide presentation we will use to facilitate today's discussion are available on the Investor Relations section of our website.
I would also like to remind you that we may make forward-looking statements during today's call and those statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from expectations are detailed in our SEC filings, including our 10-K, most recent 10-Q and our earnings release. We do not undertake any duty to update or revise those forward-looking statements, including quarterly guidance. In addition, our discussion today will contain references to non-GAAP results in an attempt to provide a more meaningful presentation in comparison to prior periods. Reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP results have been provided in the earnings release.
Now I'll turn the call over to Hugh.
Hugh Harris
Thank you, Nancy. Good morning and thank you for joining our call today. Before I turn to the business of our call, I like to open on a personal note. I am very happy to be back in the LPS full time and I deeply appreciate all of the well wishes I received while I was out. I'd also like to thank Dan Scheuble, Bill Griffin, Tom Schilling, Todd Johnson and Johnny Cash (ph) and the entire management team at LPS who assumed greater responsibilities while I focused on my recovery. The strong financial results that we reported are testimony to the strength and depth of our team.
Let me begin my formal remarks this morning with an overview of the business during the fourth quarter and full year 2012. Tom Schilling, our CFO will then address our financial performance. Later we will open the call up to questions.
LPS delivered strong operating results in the fourth quarter and for the full 2012. Record revenue in the technology, data and analytics and origination services segments was driven by strong client demand for technology-driven solutions to respond to the new industry requirements. Our EBITDA margin increased by more than a point to 27%, reflecting our focus on how to turn businesses.
Strong cash flow, a hallmark of the LPS business model, continued with our fourth consecutive year of free cash flow exceeding $340 million. These strong results validate the LPS business model and the progress we're making to enhance the mortgage value chain. In addition to our positive financial results, we've made significant progress on resolving legal matters related to legacy issue. We've now reached settlements with 49 State Attorneys General and the District of Columbia, as well as settling other key legal matters.
As a result of these settlements, LPS increased its legal and regulatory reserve in the fourth quarter about $48 million. Together these settlements put many issues related to past business practices behind us and we can now focus 100% of our efforts to capture the many opportunities we see in the marketplace through our leading technology solutions that our clients want and need.
I would like to note that we did not lose a single client because of these issues related to past practices. Our clients continued to view us as a trusted advisor as we worked together to address the challenges of this industry. In addition, we announced yesterday that our Board of Directors approved $100 million share repurchase program. This action reflects our confidence in the future of our business and our commitment to delivering value and returning cash to our shareholders over the long term.
Looking forward, LPS is pursuing many strategic initiatives to capitalize on growth opportunities in the rapidly evolving mortgage marketplace. We're investing in our technologies to help our clients meet the new regulatory and business process requirements. New regulations, including the finalization of CFPB rules and the new regulations on the Dodd-Frank are generating increased demand for our solutions. As our clients work to meet these requirements, the demand for innovative technology, data and services is increasing.
No one in the industry is better positioned than LPS to meet these needs from a technology perspective or a trusted advisor. Illustrate this point, last week we hosted a conference call to discuss the recent CFPB rulings and the solutions LPS has to address these changing regulations. More than 475 clients participated in that call. We are also continuing to invest in our servicing platform to add value for our clients and further expand our market leadership.
In 2012 we grew loans on MSP servicing technology by 3%, including implementing five new customers and transferring home equity loans from competing systems. And in addition to our commitment to supporting the top lenders and services we've established strong relationships with new market entrants. We continue to expect to benefit as mortgage servicing rights change hands and growing services to look for scalable and trusted technology to meet their compliance and operational needs. For example, we are currently working with Nationstar who recently completed a conversion to our default technology to support their growing portfolio.
We entered 2013 with a strong pipeline of professional services engagement. Our expertise in both mortgage and technology is a major strategic advantage for LPS. Additionally we continue to invest in our origination technology and have made significant progress in expanding our capabilities meet the needs of a larger addressable market. This gives us increased confidence in future growth. We believe these investments will enable LPS to increase its revenue stream from purchase originations as the housing market recovers.
We are leveraging what we have learned and developed for MSP around risk and compliance to make these offerings even more attractive to our clients. Our origination platforms now support the full spectrum of origination channels, including retail, wholesale and correspondent. They also support lenders of all sizes. These systems are integrated with our loan quality gateway platform. This platform allows lenders and investors to evaluate the quality of loans originated both pre-funding and post-funding and helps to increase transparency and reduce risk for the lender.
Ultimately this technology can help reduce the likelihood of repurchases and putbacks. Our unique competitive positioning is fueling a growing contract pipeline. In fact, we have 20 loan original technology implementations scheduled for this year already.
Another area of investment is our data and analytics business which includes expansion of our property records data. Our competitive advantage will be our array of technology-based delivery channels and our deep relationships with the nation's largest mortgage lenders. We anticipate accelerating growth for our data and analytics business over the next 12 to 18 months.
In our transaction services segment, lenders and servicers are increasingly looking to LPS for scale and compliant origination of default services to meet the evolving requirements. Our appraisal, title and close services are being integrated into our larger clients' origination channels, including retail, wholesale and correspondent. These services are a key part of our business model because they allow our clients to leverage a single provider for multiple needs. This trend is growing as the industry continues its flight to quality vendors who have the ability to support their growth.
While we believe that refi volume will be down from strong 2012 levels, we are more bullish than many market forecasts, including the MBA. Based on LPS' mortgage monitor report there are approximately 9 million loans that have refi eligible characteristics. While it's difficult to predict interest rate sensitive volumes, there still appear to be a large pool of loans eligible to be refinanced, and we've heard this to be validated by many of our large clients.
As you may recall in 2012, we significantly changed our default services business model to reduce our risk profile and improve our margins. Our clients have been very supportive of this new model. We now have a more disciplined and risk return focused model and are on a stronger position to capture profitable market share.
Going into 2013, LPS is a stronger company, focusing on expanding our technology leadership and data and analytics capabilities, delivering value-added services to enable our clients to succeed in the new marketplace, managing risk and return, and leveraging strong cash flow to deliver long-term value to our shareholders.
Before I turn the call over to Tom, I would also like to personally welcome Dan Carmichael to LPS' Board of Directors. Dan brings extensive experience in strategy, operating complex organizations and leveraging data and analytics and will be an outstanding addition to our current board.
With that, I'll turn it over to Tom.
Tom Schilling
Thank you and good morning everyone. We're very pleased with our strong operating performance in the fourth quarter and full year 2012. We reported GAAP earnings-per-share of $0.03 in the fourth quarter and $0.83 for the full year while adjusted EPS was $0.74 for quarter and $2.80 for the full year. GAAP results include charges of $0.69 per share in the fourth quarter and $1.88 for the full year. Fourth quarter charge is primarily driven by increased legal reserve and costs associated with our successful debt refinancing completed during the quarter.
We also exited two businesses in the fourth quarter. First, we shut down our OREO asset management business. The changes in the default market have reduced the size and attractiveness of this business and it no longer fits with our business strategy. Also during the quarter, a long time technology relationship we had with a third party came to a contractual end and we agreed to sell the technology assets to them. These businesses are now included within discontinued operations.
The actions we've taken over the past several months to reposition LPS for long-term growth and sustainable returns are now reflected in our operating performance. We intensified our focus on high return businesses while exiting non-core operations and reducing risk across our portfolio products and services. As a result, our adjusted EBITDA margin increased more than 1% -- one percentage point to 27%. During 2012 we achieved a record TD&A revenue, and we invested – as we invested $133 million in technology and data-driven solutions to capture growth opportunities as the mortgage industry strives to meet new requirements.
We generated $345 million in adjusted free cash flow for the year. This was our fourth consecutive year of adjusted free cash flow in excess of $340 million. During 2012 we strengthened our financial position by increasing liquidity to $634 million, reducing debt to $1.1 billion and lowering our average interest expense to 5.4% while extending the weighted average debt maturity. Our financial strength provides an important competitive advantage as the new regulatory environment requires our clients to work with partners who meet more rigorous standards. As we entered 2013, we're in a very strong position both strategically and financially to deliver results, to meet our clients' needs and sustain our investment for future growth.
My remaining comments with regard to fourth quarter and full year performance exclude the impact of the charges and adjustments outlined in the GAAP to non-GAAP reconciliation provided with our earnings release. Fourth quarter revenue totaled $501 million reflecting a 2% decrease from the prior year. For the full year consolidated revenue was $2 billion, up 1% over 2011. LPS received a record revenue in TD&A and origination services in 2012 while declines in foreclosure activity drove default services revenue lower.
Technology, data and analytics revenue totaled $189 million for the fourth quarter and $737 million for the year. The quarterly and annual growth rate was 8% and was fueled by positive performance in all revenue categories. Servicing and origination technologies posted particularly strong results. LPS' industry-leading servicing technology, MSP, continued to gain market share through organic growth, new customer acquisitions and penetration of home equity market. MSP active loans increased 3% in 2012.
We continue to invest in TD&A as our growth platform for the future. TD&A revenue mix increased from 34% of total revenue in 2011 to 37% in 2012 and it represents nearly 30% of revenue in the fourth quarter. We expect this mix shift to continue as we capitalize on our technology leadership, scale and deep relationships.
Origination technology grew 19% year-over-year and benefited from strong origination volume and increased transactions on our loan origination systems and loan quality gateway offering. We will continue to invest in origination technology during 2013 and expect to see growth in market share in 2014. On a year-over-year basis, default technology revenue increased slightly in the fourth quarter to $35 million, a decrease sequentially due to a decline in foreclosure starts of about 15%.
EBITDA for TD&A was $75 million in the quarter reflecting a strong 39% margin. The continuing investment in origination technology and data and analytics will impact margin in the near term but we expect it to expand in 2014 and beyond as we realize improving operating leverage from revenue growth.
Moving on to transaction services, origination services revenue totaled $174 million in the quarter and $625 million for the full year, an increase of 15% and 20% respectively. The historically low interest rates along with HARP 2.0 have resulted in robust industry refinance volumes. Closings in the last two weeks of the year were stronger than normal. As lenders pushed to close orders out, this pulled about $6 million to $8 million of revenue into the fourth quarter that otherwise would have closed during January under normal timelines. I'll discuss this a bit more when I review guidance later on.
Strong title, escrow and flood services growth was partially offset by double-digit declines in appraisal revenue. The decline in appraisal revenue was driven by two primary factors. First, HARP 2.0 refinancings do not require appraisals, therefore a significant portion of the refinancing activity does not result in appraisal order. And second, as we mentioned previously, we continue to be disappointed managing this business by balancing both risk and margin. As a result, we walked away from some business that did not meet our standards.
Default services revenue was $138 million in the fourth quarter and $637 million for the full year 2012, down 26% and 19% respectively. As we guided in our third quarter call, revenue continued to be pressured by decline in foreclosure starts as the industry implements new regulations and requirements. Revenue was also impacted by our actions to improve risk reward profile of the business, including stepping away from marginal return contracts. We will continue to focus on managing margins and expanding our market share in default services base as near-term volume remains low and difficult to predict. While we do not expect any immediate impact, we are hopeful that the recent settlements pertaining to the bank consent orders will eventually begin to clear the backlog inventory of delinquent loans..
Transaction services EBITDA in the fourth quarter was $72 million representing a solid 23% margin. Origination services margin remained strong as we benefited from high refinancing volumes while default services margins were lower as we continued to reengineer our cost structure to reflect volumes that have declined more than 50% from their peak. While we cannot control industry transaction volumes, we can manage profitability. Our role is to rigorously manage our cost structure to sustain at 20% plus EBITDA margin over time with transaction services.
Corporate expenses for the fourth quarter were $12 million, about flat sequentially, and we expect corporate expenses to remain at this level throughout 2013. As I mentioned earlier, we expanded our total EBITDA margin in 2000 to 27% on total EBITDA $135 million.
Capital expenditures totaled $113 million in 2012. We continue to invest in technology and data-driven solutions that allow our clients to succeed in the new mortgage landscape. CapEx in the fourth quarter was $41 million which was elevated largely due to timing of certain purchases as total year capital expense was in line with our original guidance.
We expect capital expenditures in 2013 to be in the range of $110 million and $120 million. In the first half of 2013, we expect to complete our property records database expansion. Based on the project timeline in the sales cycle we expect this investment to provide revenue growth later in 2013 and beyond.
Moving on to the balance sheet, outstanding debt at year-end was $1.1 billion with an average interest rate at the end of quarter of 5.4%. In 2013 we expect the average interest rate to be approximately 5.2% as we recognize the benefits of our recent debt refinancing. Our liquidity of $634 million at year-end included cash of $236 million and capacity under our revolving credit facility of $398 million. Despite the fact that we will be paying out the majority of the legal settlements recently announced during the first quarter, we expect maintain liquidity of about $450 million to $500 million throughout the quarter.
Adjusted free cash flow was very strong at $92 million in the quarter and $345 million for the year. Since our spin-off in mid-2008, we've generated $2 billion of cash flow from operations. We've always put the highest priority on reinvesting this capital back into our business to maintain our technology leadership in the industry. Beyond that -- beyond the reinvestment in our business we returned approximately $570 million to shareholders through dividend and share repurchase and paid down debt of over $500 million to improve our financial strength and resiliency.
As Hugh mentioned, we announced this morning that the LPS Board of Directors approved a $100 million share repurchase authorization. This authorization will run through June 30, 2014. Once we've resolved remaining legal matters and begin to build our cash balances, we will once again consider share repurchase as part of our capital allocation strategy.
To reiterate, our capital allocation strategy is to continue to focus on making the investments necessary to maintain our leadership in delivering technology and data solutions for the mortgage industry. After that, we will continue to look to return capital to shareholders in one form or another as we have in the past.
Now I want to review our guidance for the first quarter. We expect TD&A revenue to be up slightly over fourth quarter as market share gains across all product offerings are expected to offset softness in desktop volumes. We expect the refinancing activity to remain strong in the first quarter. However as I discussed earlier we experienced acceleration in closings at the end of December which pulled about $6 million to $8 million of revenue into the fourth quarter that otherwise would have closed in the first quarter. Therefore we expect origination services to be down in the first quarter but on a normalized basis, about flat with fourth quarter.
Within default services we expect revenue to be down sequentially similar to what we experienced in the past few quarters. In total we expect revenue to be in a range between $460 million and $480 million and EPS from continuing operations to be about $0.63 to $0.67. We're very pleased with the strong operating results, our strengthened financial position and the progress we've made to make LPS more focused and nimble as we face the challenges that exist in the market.
Now I'll turn the call over to the operator, so we can take a few questions.
Question-and-Answer Session
(Operator Instructions) And we'll go first to Darrin Peller with Barclays.
Darrin Peller - Barclays Capital
You know the first question, origination services again was very strong even sequentially. When reviewing the background and history in origination services, LPS would typically outperform the market. And then over the past year as you discussed, it was a bit slower than the market, probably because of pullbacks from some appraisal activities.
When we look ahead, I guess number one, can you give us a little bit more directional color on what assumptions you are thinking of in terms of originations? I know you said you think it will be better than some of the forecasts, but down on refis at least. Is it materially better than MBA, because MBA is only I think around $800 million, and refi is down -- would be down a lot from this year? We are coming into our Barclays estimate somewhere in the 1.2 range. So maybe how close are you to each of those numbers? And then on top of that, would you expect origination revenue to outpace the market again, the way it used to, or are there still appraisal or other activities that would prevent that from happening?
Tom Schilling
Darrin, I think as Hugh said, we are more bullish, I think that would probably put us closer to the our Barclays forecast than it would be a MBA forecast. Again I think it's going to probably be down but it's still going to be at I think a very elevated level as there is a lot of loans, 9 million loans that have refi characteristics.
In terms of the performance versus the metric, I can say within our settlements – within the title and close element we have continued to outperform the market on that by a pretty good ratio. It is the appraisal given that appraisals are only being done on probably about 60% to 70% of the refi activity that's taking place, that will continue to lag now because HARP had a fairly – about the same impact in 2012 as it will 2013, I don't think it will be as pronounced in 2013 but we will continue to see appraisal revenue lag the market metrics.
Hugh Harris
Yeah, just add to that, Darrin, the meetings we are having with our customers they are continuing to tell us their thinking around refis will outpace what the MBA has put out as well. They are seeing increased volume, I think in all of their shop.
Darrin Peller - Barclays Capital
I just want to follow up. On the discussion around capital, I appreciate the $100 million buyback announcement. I am assuming that at least it was somewhat related to a little more clarity on the legal front given all the AG settlements. Just help us understand, number one, it sounded, Tom, like you were sort of addressing the buyback as something that you are getting ready for, but not ready to necessarily use just yet. Am I right in that assumption?
And then the $100 million is a nice number, but obviously you generate well over $300 million of free cash flow. So I mean are you saying basically that you're waiting to see what happens more on the front of some of the legal issues, payout, the legal amount that you have to pay out now, and then you will maybe consider using the buyback more then? Or are you saying that you would add to it then? Can you just give us maybe a little more color there?
Tom Schilling
I think the $100 million is -- that was authorized in the announcement today, we will, as I mentioned – first, we obviously are going to have – we have a lot of liquidity, we had a lot of cash on the balance sheet as we exited the fourth quarter but we're obviously in the process as we speak of paying out a lot of cash settlements because the of state AG and we're hopeful that we will be settling some other in the near future. So my comments were meant to just clarify that we're going to continue to make sure that we get those cash responsibilities behind us before you always see us in the market in a big way buying shares.
Hugh Harris
Yeah I would just add to that too, Darrin, one of the things that I want to make sure of is – as we continue to grow our origination technology and our investments in the space we may find opportunities for acquisitions and we want to be able to focus on that as well – it's how we use the cash.
Darrin Peller - Barclays Capital
Just last question and then I will go back to the queue. On the consent order, obviously we have resolved quite a few of the issues. Where do we stand there? I mean, is it something, Hugh, that you could see happening in the year or something that should be earlier than that? Just give us a bit of a sense of timing in terms of your expectations.
Hugh Harris
Well, Todd Johnson and I meet with the groups every week, there is ongoing discussion with him on a daily basis. We are pleased at this point as to where we are in the process around the consent order. I told everyone last year it is a process that we have to get through, we think it's in our best interest at this point to finalize the document execution review and get this thing finished up. And our anticipation is or at least our hope is that we'd be finished by the end of the year. But that probably is really going to be dependent on the Fed and others as to the timing. But I'm very comfortable where we are in this process.
Our next question comes from Carter Malloy with Stephens Incorporated.
Carter Malloy - Stephens Inc.
On the last question actually, around the consent order and timing, given that it could be a long time but that you are as comfortable as you say you are, does a consent order still or a settlement of that still absolutely preclude a larger buyback? Or could we see you guys as we move forward through the year commit to a larger level of share repurchase?
Hugh Harris
Well, as far as the consent order is concerned, everything around that is built into our current legal reserve and our expectation around that. So depending on the timing of when it's done I think we're adequately covered in that regard, you can speak Tom –
Tom Schilling
I think as I alluded to it, the board will continue to address some whether or not we want a need to increase the share buyback later in the year and beyond but we've generally I think it's a pattern in historically approved share repurchases in the increment of $100 million, and I think that's what kept consistent with our past practice.
Carter Malloy - Stephens Inc.
And then, Tom, also I understand reluctance to answer this question, but I've got to ask it anyways. In terms of the outlook for the rest of the year and even going into 2014, should we have the transactional type businesses decelerating in terms of their growth rates? And maybe if you can't give an overall, we think we will shrink the top-line mid-single digits type of commentary, maybe something along the lines of, we think we can keep free cash above $300 million a year. Just any guidance you can give us around us better building a DCF to understand the outyears of the business would help a lot.
Tom Schilling
Yeah in terms of cash flow we don't want to give too much guidance, as you say the reason we're giving quarterly guidance is because it is very difficult to predict the volumes in this business. But right now our projections would put us at roughly that $300 million of cash flow again for 2013. But that's contingent on as we set a fairly but we're going to consider a strong refi market probably down slightly over 2012 levels but still very strong historically speaking and then continued probably choppiness so to speak in the default services space. But again we're focused on driving margins in those businesses, so we will be very diligent in managing profitability regardless of what the volumes industry draws us.
Carter Malloy - Stephens Inc.
And maybe then on the margin side, since it's probably more likely than not that the industry gives us some top-line pressure this year and you guys have a little more control over the margins. Is that something where we should expect you to sustain margins or actually improve them this year?
Tom Schilling
Look, it all depends on what the quarterly fluctuations on volume are. I would just stick to what we've been saying, which is that we're committed to keeping those businesses at a minimum of 20% EBITDA margin over the long term. And I think we're really focused as we said in the TD&A market and growing -- continuing to grow that where we're getting the much more of the recurring revenue and the recurring EBITDA attributes which we find attractive.
Hugh Harris
Carter, I would just say to you as well. We have been meeting with a third-party mortgage experts over the last several months doing some work together. And as late as last week we asked them about their folks around forecasting quarter to quarter versus for the whole year and just to echo what you are saying, it is difficult to really predict where the refis are going as well as the default, because we're all hopeful that with the settlement with the banks around their consent order that things will pick up. But I don't think any of us can respond to that yet until we see a little more time to go on. The same with refis, if rates stay where they are, tick down a little bit, the refi volume will pick up. If rates go up it is a bit more challenging. So we appreciate your concern and how you find the model, but it's just still difficult thing for us to predict at this point. One thing I will say is I'm very confident that we will get our share of the business in both categories regardless of where it goes.
And our next question comes from Julio Quinteros with Goldman Sachs.
Paul Thomas - Goldman Sachs
Hey guys, this is Paul Thomas for Julio. I guess in default services you've talked about exiting the lower margin contracts. Should we expect that to be an ongoing process now, or should we be looking at the change in revenue there being mostly volume related?
Tom Schilling
Yeah, the changes there are mostly volume related but managing those margins is -- that both from a cost structure standpoint as well as the contract standpoint are a continuing part of that business. So that doesn't end with what we've done in the past. So as we go forward we'll continue to manage margins both from the revenue and the cost standpoint.
Paul Thomas - Goldman Sachs
And I know the default volumes you were just talking about, the difficulty in anticipating those. I guess there was the California Homeowners Bill of Rights that started at the beginning of the year. I guess is there any sense from your end on any change driven by that in terms of filings?
Tom Schilling
It's hard to quantify what the total impact is going to be but we're certainly seeing some reduction in volume already in the early part of the year. And it's similar to others -- it looks to be on a pattern that's similar to other states that have implemented similar regulations.
And we'll go next to Glenn Greene with Oppenheimer.
Glenn Greene - Oppenheimer
I guess the first question, I want to drill down a little bit on the refi outlook as well, because it sounds like it's very meaningfully changed from what you were talking about coming out of the third quarter. I think you were talking about down 30-ish percent at that time. If I just heard Tom's comment a minute ago, it sounds like slightly down in '13 and '12. And I'm kind of looking at some of the data from your largest issuers, two of the biggest issuers in the market as you know, and their application data really slowed in the fourth quarter Q to Q. So I've got a little bit of a disconnect and just looking for a little bit more color on why the refi outlook that you guys have seems much more optimistic than three months ago.
Tom Schilling
When we look at the applications, I think you're absolutely right, we saw the slowing down, what we're seeing now is just through January we're certainly – as we kind of alluded to in what we expect for revenue in the first quarter, we've seen some of our closings come down because of the high amount of closings in the fourth quarter. But we are seeing open orders increased probably right now and January about 10% higher than they were back in the November and December timeframe. So what's happening is most of the lenders are starting to fill -- build the backlog internally of what they are processing through. So there still is a – the level of activity that's happening within the banks is still as strong as it was in the second half of the year.
But as you know Glenn, that it's a timing issue of opens and closes and those metrics get thrown around little bit but we expect what we're seeing now on the opening side will be more beneficial to the back end of the first quarter and in the second quarter from a revenue standpoint if those orders get closed.
Hugh Harris
I would just add to that, Glenn, one of things I think that caused things to slow down a little bit in December that we were seeing was the customers didn't have the capacity to keep handling the volumes that they were seeing. So as Tom mentioned, trying to get everything closed at the end of December really distorted I think a little bit of the picture that we looked at earlier in the year. We are now seeing, from comments from some of the folks like Wells and others that volume seems to be taking the line back up.
Glenn Greene - Oppenheimer
Different direction. TD&A, obviously, increased a portion of your growth strategy and obviously a big part of your profitability. Maybe a little bit of color and direction on how you are thinking about TD&A growth in fiscal '13? And I was intrigued by your comments on accelerating investment, which implied to me that margins might come down somewhat in '13. Just wanted to get some direction on that and make sure I'm thinking about that right.
Tom Schilling
Yeah I think the first part of 2013, we're going to probably see a little bit of additional compression on margins as we continue those investments. But in the back half of the year we're expecting to start to gain traction and expansion of margins in TD&A and then in 2014 and beyond is where we really expect to see some acceleration in the growth rate as we know continue to gain traction with the loan quality gateway, the loan origination systems as Hugh mentioned which address the entire spectrum of all channels now as well as our data and analytics investments.
Glenn Greene - Oppenheimer
So is this like a mid-single-digit grower this year, potentially getting to high-single, low-double-digit growth in '14 directionally?
Tom Schilling
I will comment on the 2013, yeah I think we're probably looking at mid-single-digit grower in 2013 and I will hold up any commentary on '14 at this point.
Glenn Greene - Oppenheimer
And then real quickly, any reason Nevada wasn't part of the settlement?
Hugh Harris
Well, the matter with Nevada is still in litigation. But all the allegations in Nevada are the same claims that we just settled with the other AGs. So we are very hopeful to reach a similar resolution with Nevada. But if we're not able to reach a settlement we're very comfortable about our defences on these claims.
And we'll go next to Greg Smith - Sterne, Agee.
Greg Smith - Agee Sterne, Agee & Leach
One of you mentioned in the beginning of the call that you still see the sale of servicing rights ultimately as an opportunity. And I guess the question is where is that confidence coming from, just because it seems like there also be risk with guys like Ocwen and Nationstar sort of running in-house competing systems I guess. So depending on where servicing goes, it seems like it could be a risk or an opportunity. Can you just help me better understand where the confidence comes from?
Hugh Harris
Yeah one of the things that is important to note, a lot of the sales have been coming out BofA. And Bank of America was not on our MSP system. So as those loans are sold, the opportunity for us to pick up more loans on MSP are pretty high. You've seen some of the buyers in there Walter, Nationstar and Ocwen and lot of the buyers. We're doing other things with Nationstar at this point, we talked about the fact that we have just installed a desktop there. And quite honestly I think as Nationstar and Ocwen continue to grow their in-house systems and some of the things they are doing may be challenge. We want to stay in touch with them, we want to stay involved with them. So if they overcome an issue, we certainly have the scale and the ability to take our business on. So while we did lose some default revenue associate with that we've more than made up for that and the loans that we were picking up on a recurring revenue basis on MSP.
Greg Smith - Agee Sterne, Agee & Leach
And then you guys mentioned you have 20 loan origination implementations going on this year, I think. Is there any way to sort of size that as far as the revenue opportunity there tied to that?
Tom Schilling
Yeah, the customers that we are implementing right now are candidly of the smaller end, we do not have one of the large top five lenders in implementation on our loan origination systems right now but continuing to pursue those opportunities as well. So these are some smaller size deals and I would say probably all 20 of them at this point are probably somewhere in that, depending on volumes because a lot of these are transactionally priced somewhere in that $15 million to $20 million of annual revenue. But as we go upstream a little bit more in terms -- as you know this business is very concentrated, so to really move the needle you got to land one of the big guys and so we're continuing to be in dialogue on our loan origination systems with all the top players.
Hugh Harris
Greg, I would just add to that. We talked several quarters ago and I implied that we wanted to build out our capabilities around the origination front to take advantage of the purchase market. I said then I thought we had a 12 to 18 months, or maybe 24 months window. We've made significant progress in the last seven months and are much farther along than what we'd be at this point.
So we now have an attractive offering to begin talking with the megas about (ph) and as we add our capabilities around correspondent and wholesale it gives us an opportunity to really step in with some of those guys. So we've made the investments, we're continuing to make the investments, and my goal is to be totally prepared when the purchase market really takes off, which I don't really see yet until probably early 2014.
Greg Smith - Agee Sterne, Agee & Leach
And then just one last one. As we think about the 9 million loans that you guys mentioned as having the characteristics to be refinanced. I guess it just begs the question why -- in your view why have they not been refinanced? Is it just a capacity issue potentially, or are these individual homeowners just not aware of the HAMP program? Anything structural like that that could become a tipping point and cause an acceleration among that 9 million?
Tom Schilling
I think the bigger issue here is just the capacity within the banks to process the foreclosures. We did 6 to 7 million last year, and I think they're all pretty much tapped out in terms of the capacity on the throughput. So I think it's more of an issue of just managing through those eligible loans. Each of the bank as they do their campaigns to go through their portfolio and do the refinancing generally have to cut off at a certain point because they only have so much capacity to get them processed. And that's why I think the banks as well as us in terms of working with them are more bullish, that -- assuming interest rate, as Hugh said, assuming the interest rates remain attractive that there's going to continue to be a fairly robust refi market.
And next we have a follow-up from Darrin Peller with Barclays.
Darrin Peller - Barclays Capital
Just a quick one. There was obviously some -- and if I missed this, I'm sorry -- but there was some news obviously of BofA selling some loans to servicers, different servicers. Can you just give a little color on what your expectation is in terms of potential impact to your default business, maybe help quantify the amount of those loans that maybe you have serviced in the past in the default business and if there is a financial impact we should expect in 2013?
Tom Schilling
I think I was trying to cover on that a few minutes ago, as BofA announced some of the sales of their loans, it will have an impact on our default numbers as some of those loans are not going through Ocwen or someone that we are not connected with today. But I also covered up that we now have Nationstar which is one of the buyers on our desktop level and several of the buyers that are involved in this transaction are MSP clients and we ultimately believe that the recurring revenues associated with those loans moving from Bank of America which did not have an MSP relationship, those loans moving to other clients that have MSP relationship will more than offset any downside, which is on the default side.
Darrin Peller - Barclays Capital
Okay, but in terms of the actual size, the latter benefits are probably going to come after the initial impacts. Is that fair, Hugh?
Tom Schilling
I think the way we look at it Darrin is particularly on the profit side, so EBITDA that we see this right now based on how we think these loans are going to end up, as Hugh said with some of them eventually finding MSP and many on the desktop that it will be an EBITDA uplift within the next 12 months.
Hugh Harris
Yet, not all those loans that are moving are default loans. I mean all those loans are current.
And ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude our Q&A session. I will turn the call back to Ms. Murphy for any closing or final remarks.
Nancy Murphy
Thanks Dorris. Thank you everyone for joining us today.
And ladies and gentlemen that does conclude today's presentation. We thank you for your participation.
Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.
If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.com. Thank you!


text:
Ninth Avenue Technologies
RS1,00,000 To 1,50,000Navi Mumbai
Job Description: •To Write Articles Related To Various Topics. English Must Be Excellent To Avoid Errors. •Must Have Interest To Write And Read In English •Ability To Do Research And Elaborate Any Topic. •Unique Content Generation...
Key Skills : journalist,news content writer,news content editor,news writer,news reportor,news...
Content Manager 3.00 - 8.00 Lacs ( 0 - 4 yrs)
Space Consultant
RS3,00,000 To 8,00,000Mumbai, Mumbai Suburb, Navi Mumbai
Job Description Role and Responsibilities 1. Write content on topics on Health and Nutrition in prescribed format and agreed length for website, ebook, mobile applications 2. Review the content prepared by team before sending it for further review...
Key Skills : content writer,content manage,editor,content management
Copywriter / Content Writer / Copy Editor for Advertising Industries ( 4 - 7 yrs)
Prism Manpower Services
RS3,00,000 To 5,00,000Mumbai, Mumbai Suburb, Navi Mumbai
Graduate / Bmm / Reputed Advt School 4 To 6 Years Experience Into Advt Agency Or Design Studio. Conceptualizing , Strategizing, And Copywriting For Brochures, Print Advt,Digital Media, Emailer\'S,Web Site Branding,Corporate Identities. Have ...
Key Skills : copywriter,copy writer,copy writing,content writer
Fulltime Content Write ( 0 - 2 yrs)
RSLess than 50000 To 1,25,000Navi Mumbai
Need Content Writer with 1-2 years' experience. Fresher can also apply if have good command over written English skills. Need Excellent writing and communication skills. Good understanding of web content, promotion and marketing.
Key Skills : english editor,content writer,english faculty,english lecturer,english teacher,english...
Prime Focus Technologies
RS50,000 To 2,25,000Mumbai, Mumbai Suburb, Navi Mumbai
Greetings from Prime Focus Technologies!!! We have an opportunity for QC Analyst for one of our department. Job Profile: *Candidate must have more than 6 months of QC experience. *Sound knowledge of Audio/Video, Digital formats & QC. *Conf...
Key Skills : audio qc,video qc,editor qc,qc content,qc video,quality control executive
Not a member as yet ?
Register now to apply to these jobs


text:
Sci fi/Fantasy image byTerra Bacovin
As it were, the pagan symbol, the pentacle, some call it the perfection of the human body, a symbol of protection, a symbol of the five elements. Drew it during my exploration of the Mother Goddess religion.
Published More than a year ago
Category Mythology
Be the first to favourite this image.


text:
- sort by:
12 houses for sale in IG10Did you mean?
- Check you have entered the location correctly.
- Alternatively enter another alternative location or adjust your search criteria.
- If 'no results' continues to show, we may not have any properties for sale in your desired location.
2 Bedroom Terraced House For Sale
Malvern Gardens, Loughton, Essex, IG10
The property offers excellent size ground floor accomodation which would ideal for a couple with a young family or investment buyer. Features: Lounge 13'4 x 13'2 , Fitted kitchen 12'0 x 10'6 , Dining area 16'2 x 9'2 , Luxury bathroom, Bedroom 1 11'6 x 10' , Bedroom 2 9'
2 Bedroom Terraced House For Sale
Torrington Gardens, Loughton, Essex, IG10
Well kept and excellently decorated 2 bedroom terrace house ideal for the young family, first time purchaser or investment buyer. Features:- 2 double bedrooms, 15' x 13' lounge, 14' fitted kitchen/diner, 51' secluded garden, modern bathroom with corner bath and shower,
- sort by:
- Single Property
- Multiple Properties