text:
Integrating PHP Projects with Jenkins
€ 8,99
Bisher € 9,49
epub eBook
Sofort lieferbar (Download)
September 2011
BeschreibungToday's web applications require frequent updates, not just by adding or upgrading features, but by maintaining and improving the softwares existing code base as well. This concise book shows PHP developers how to use Jenkins, the popular continuous integration server, to monitor various aspects of software quality throughout a projects lifecycle.You'll learn how to implement continuous integration to automate processes for building and deploying regular software releases. The book also shows you how to use Jenkins to monitor and improve your application through continuous inspection. You'll come to understand why reducing complexity and eliminating duplicate code is just as important as introducing new functionality.Learn how to use Apache Ant to automate your software buildsCreate a job for your PHP project in Jenkins and set up a continuous integration environmentAdd static code analysis tools to your build for continuous inspectionUse specialized PHP and Jenkins tools to simplify the automated build and continuous integration of your projectExplore additional processes and techniques, such as adding automated integration tests
Untertitel: Continuous Integration for Robust Building and Testing. Sprache: Englisch.
Verlag: O'Reilly Media
Erscheinungsdatum: September 2011
Seitenanzahl: 60 Seiten
Format: epub eBook
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM
Alle Preise inkl. MwSt., ggf. zzgl. Versandkosten


text:
Special Price off
Special Price off
Limited Period offer till stock lasts. Please check cart for final offer price.From: 29/11/2016 12:00:00 AMTo: 25/12/2016 11:59:00 PM
The items have been added to your wishlist
The item has been removed from your wishlist
Please sign in to add item into wishlist!
This product already exists in your wishlist
Park Avenue
Park Avenue Brown Checks Shirt
Out of stock but not out of luck! Add it to your wishlist and we'll try to get it to you soon.
Sold by
Fulfilled by
|Fulfilled by:
Delivery options
Enter your pincode to see your available delivery options
Express Shipping
Home Delivery
Click and CollectBuy online, collect in-store
Please sign in to send email!
Mail The Product Link
- Cool and laidback, this brown shirt from Park Avenue is perfect for off duty looks. This checkered shirt is made of cotton, which ensures optimum comfort. Team it with navy blue trousers or denims and loafers for that trendy look.
- Fit - Slim fit
- Color - Brown
- Model fit - Model is 6'/185 cms and wearing size 40
- Wash Care - Do not bleach. Do not tumble dry.
- Fabric - Cotton
- Product Listing Id :MP000000000491845
- An order, once placed, can be cancelled until the seller processes it.
- This product can be returned within 0 day(s) of delivery, subject to the Return Policy.
- For any other queries, do reach out to CliQ Care at 1800 208 8282 or firstname.lastname@example.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Reliable Window Restoration in Mendota, CA
- Expert Mendota Window Restoration Professionals
- Free Quotes on Window Restoration in Mendota, CA
Window Restoration in Mendota, CA
Mendota window restoration services will be able to fix whatever is wrong with the windows in your house so you can maintain a beautiful overall aesthetic. It is very important that you get your current windows restored if they have cracks in them, because even small cracks can let in air from outside and make your home less energy-efficient. By getting your windows restored you will be able to save a lot of money in the long term, so that is definitely something to consider when looking into these services.
Avg Costs for Window Restoration
Min Cost
Max Cost
Avg Cost
$4,553.55 - $6,926.25
Find the Best Quality Window Restoration - Mendota, CA
A good Mendota window restoration company will be able to correct any issues with your windows so you no longer have to deal with them. Windows that are damaged or very old lose their ability to insulate a home and prevent outside noise from getting into your home. These restoration services will provide you with the peace and quiet you need while you are trying to relax at home, and they will make your house a lot more energy-efficient. The last thing you want is to spend more money than you need to on your utility bills, so you will therefore have to make a point of getting your windows restored as soon as possible.
Window Restoration Companies
Interior Specialties
14500 Commerce Way
Kerman, CA 93630
R Square Design And Construction Co
P O Box 266
Chowchilla, CA 93610
David Hughes
25360 Rd 19
Chowchilla, CA 93610
Certain Teed Corporation
17775 Ave 23 1/2
Chowchilla, CA 93610
All Season Windows
14510 W Kearney Blvd
Kerman, CA 93630


text: Skip the turkey and try a delectable pork sandwich instead. Create a pork sandwich that's sure to impress with these great ideas. Looking for More Sandwich Recipes ?BLT Burgers Chicken Club Cuban Egg French Dip Grilled Cheese Ham Meatball Paninis Peanut Butter Philly Pork Roast Beef Sloppy Joes Steak Tuna Turkey Vegetable Wraps Our Best Pork Sandwich Recipes Pages1 2 next › last »


text:
Recently added item(s) ×
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Regular Price:
Special Price
In stock
A cute, funky, durable way to hang your Ju-Ju-Be diaper bag on your stroller. Adjustable, swivel clip design. Made with metal hardware, these clips are built to last! Made for use with Ju-Ju-Be Diaper Bags.
Sold as a set of 2 silver clips.
Made responsibly in China.
Copyright © 2004-2016 Parenting By Nature - Canada's Natural Parenting Store since 2004. All rights reserved. 15 Cedar Pointe Dr. Unit 4, Barrie ON Canada


text:
Ad Butler offers banner rotation and advertising management software.
Attraktive Eishockey-Highlights bei freeXmedia: Spannende WM & die Playoffs ... freeXmedia vermarktet ab sofort die offiziellen Plattformen des Deutschen ...
Ad Butler is leading in Top 10K Sites, Top 100K Sites, Top 1M Sites and The Entire Web.
In terms of market share, freeXmedia is clearly lagging behind, losing to Ad Butler in all segments.
Ad Butler has better usage coverage in more websites categories. Including Business & Industry, News & Media, Arts & Entertainment, Sports and 130 other categories.
freeXmedia is leading in Video Games, Games, Automotive News, Movies and 3 other categories.
Ad Butler is leading in most countries, including United States, Belarus, United Kingdom, Canada and 80 other countries.
freeXmedia is leading in Germany and Korea Republic.


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.
April 30, 2012
DENNIS A. SANCHEZ,PLAINTIFF,v.MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff Dennis A. Sanchez ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying his applications for disability and supplemental security income benefits pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The matter is currently before the Court on the parties' briefs, which were submitted, without oral argument, to the Honorable Gary S. Austin, United States Magistrate Judge.*fn1
FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS*fn2
In August 2007, Plaintiff filed applications for disability and supplemental security income benefits, alleging disability beginning July 7, 2005. See AR 171-180. Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and on reconsideration, and Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). AR 102-106, 108-112, 114-124. ALJ Michael J. Kopicki held a hearing and issued an order denying benefits on November 27, 2009, finding Plaintiff was not disabled. AR 9-17. Thereafter, on February 11, 2011, the Appeals Council denied review. AR 1-3.
Hearing Testimony
ALJ Kopicki held a hearing on October 15, 2009, in Fresno, California. Plaintiff appeared and testified. He was represented by attorney Michael Goldberg. Vocational Expert ("VE") Jose L. Chaparro also testified. AR 20-52.
Plaintiff lives with his seventy-eight-year-old father and his girlfriend in Fresno. AR 21-22. He has two adult children who live outside the home. AR 24. He currently has no source of income, but did receive unemployment benefits in 2008 and 2009. He has not yet received a decision on his workers' compensation claim. AR 22-23.
Plaintiff was fifty-one years old at the time of the hearing. AR 23. He is five feet seven inches tall, weighs 175 pounds, and is right-handed. He attended high school through the eleventh grade, obtained a GED and has received vocational training. AR 23-24. He has never served in the military. AR 24.
Following surgery for a rotator cuff injury to his shoulder in July 2005, Plaintiff was off work for seven or eight months. Upon his return to work, he worked two days before being advised that his employer needed "further information from the doctor;" he never returned to work thereafter. AR 25; see also AR 40-42. At present, Plaintiff has undergone three or four surgeries on his right shoulder. AR 27-28. His current symptoms include pain and lack of movement. Specifically, he cannot move "upwards" or "sideways," nor can he lift anything over his shoulder. As an example, he cannot lift a full carton of milk from the refrigerator. AR 28. Plaintiff testified that he can "almost feel the piece of ligament stretching in [his] right shoulder, and the pain is consistent." AR 28. As a result of his disability, Plaintiff believes he will be a liability to any company and its employees. AR 28-29. Asked to rate his pain on a scale of one to ten, Plaintiff testified the pain is a ten. AR 29. Plaintiff has not followed through with physical therapy because he cannot "do the repetitious therapy" he was asked to do. AR 29. Further, Plaintiff testified that he spoke to his doctor about it and the doctor told him not to follow through. AR 29-30. Finally, Plaintiff does take prescription medication for his shoulder and it relieves pain, but its side effects bother his ulcer. AR 30. Side effects include stomach pain, dizziness, and feeling "[k]ind of zombied out." AR 32. Plaintiff's medications include Opana, Oxycodone, Cimetidine, Soma, Mobic and Tagamet. AR 31. He understands his shoulder pain is something he has to live with, and he may need a replacement in the future. AR 30-31. The pain also makes him jumpy and angry. AR 43.
Plaintiff also suffers from a herniated disc between the sixth and seventh vertebrae in his spine; the injury occurred in 1996. AR 30, 32. His symptoms include swelling in the neck and inflammatory pain up to his head and down his spine. AR 32. He takes pain medication and an anti-inflammatory to treat it. AR 32. Further, because Plaintiff cannot use his right dominant arm, he uses his left arm too much and now it is beginning to cause him difficulties. He has bursitis in both shoulders. AR 32.
As a result of his physical problems, Plaintiff suffers from emotional problems. He sleeps a lot and no longer socializes with others. AR 38. He is "insecure about" himself and has difficulty concentrating. AR 38-39.
Plaintiff estimated he could sit comfortably for thirty to forty-five minutes. AR 42. Asked to estimate the amount of time he could tolerate sitting in an eight-hour day, Plaintiff estimates four to five hours over the course of a workday, qualifying that he lies down at least three times during the day on average. AR 42-43. He can walk for a mile and a half or two miles at a time, and could stand for a couple hours at a time before needing to move and stretch. AR 44. When he was asked how much weight he could lift using both arms, Plaintiff estimated that he could lift twenty-five to thirty pounds, putting most of the weight on his left arm, although he has not tried doing so. AR 44-45. It is painful to reach for things as well. AR 45.
When asked about a typical day, Plaintiff indicated he gets up between 10 and 11 a.m., takes his pain medications, lies down again, then tries to do something around the house, like taking out the trash. AR 33. He uses a riding lawn mower to care for the yard and washes dishes. AR 33. He does not do his own laundry. AR 34. Personal grooming like bathing, dressing, and grooming are painful because of his shoulder. AR 34. He does not do any other yard work, relying on his brother or nephew for assistance. AR 35. Plaintiff does have a driver's license and drives on occasion, but typically his girlfriend drives as he is "under the medication." AR 35. His girlfriend does the grocery shopping. AR 35.
When he was asked about hobbies, Plaintiff indicated he works on electronics to keep busy, but is not a technician. AR 35. He used to enjoy fishing, lifting weights, and collecting antiques. AR 36. He attends church services, but does not socialize much. While he does have family in town, he stopped attending picnics and barbecues. AR 36. Plaintiff watches a lot of movies, estimating he watches five to six hours of television a day. AR 37. He uses the computer every now and then, but is "not very good at it." AR 37. He does not read anymore. AR 37.
Plaintiff previously used cocaine and participated in a drug rehabilitation program from September 15, 1997, through March 25, 1998. AR 36-37. He no longer uses drugs, nor does he drink alcohol. AR 37. Within the last fifteen years, Plaintiff has worked in street maintenance for the City of Fresno, as a construction laborer for Irish Construction, and in production at United Cold Storage. AR 39-40. He also briefly worked for a temporary agency. AR 40.
VE Chaparro identified Plaintiff's past relevant work as: construction worker II, very heavy and unskilled; highway worker, medium and semiskilled with an SVP*fn3 of three; stores laborer, medium and unskilled; and welder-fitter, medium yet performed as heavy and skilled. AR 47-49.
In the first hypothetical, the VE was asked to assume a hypothetical person of the same age, education and work experience as Plaintiff, with the ability to lift and carry ten pounds frequently and twenty pounds occasionally, with a limitation of no pushing or pulling with the right upper extremity, no more than occasional climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and who should avoid work activity at or above shoulder level with the dominant right upper extremity. VE Chaparro indicated such an individual could not perform any of Plaintiff's past work. AR 49.
Bearing the same hypothetical individual in mind, the VE was asked whether there were other jobs in the region that the individual could also perform. VE Chaparro indicated such an individual would be capable of work as a fast foods worker, light and unskilled, DOT*fn4 311.472-010, with 171,500 positions available in California and 1,944,000 positions available nationwide; cashier, light and unskilled, DOT 211.462-010, with 181,000 positions available in California, and 1,797,000 positions available nationwide. AR 50. Additionally, the individual could work as a parking lot attendant, light and unskilled, DOT 915.473-010, with 6,100 positions available in California and 35,000 positions available nationwide. AR 50.
In a second hypothetical question, the VE was asked to assume the same hypothetical worker with the additional limitation of being off task three to four times a day for about ten to fifteen minutes due to the side effects of medications and pain, and who would require redirection by a supervisor. AR 50-51. VE Chaparro indicated such an individual could not perform any of the positions previously identified as available. AR 51.
Medical Record
The entire medical record was reviewed by the Court. AR 263-579. The medical evidence will be referenced below as necessary to this Court's decision.
ALJ's Findings
Using the Social Security Administration's five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not meet the disability standard. AR 9-17.
More particularly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 31, 2006, the onset date. AR 11. Further, the ALJ identified right shoulder arthritis and rotator cuff tear - status post multiple surgeries, and a history of a herniated disc in the cervical spine as severe impairments. AR 11-12. Nonetheless, the ALJ determined that the severity of the Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or exceed any of the listed impairments. AR 12.
Based on his review of the entire record, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, to sit, stand or walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday, yet must avoid pushing or pulling with his dominant right upper extremity, but may climb occasionally, and avoid work activity at or above shoulder level with the right upper extremity, and strenuous overhead work with the left upper extremity. AR 12-16.
Next, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not capable of performing his past relevant work. AR 16. Nevertheless, based upon Plaintiff's age, education, work experience and RFC, the ALJ determined there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the work of a fast food worker, cashier, or parking lot attendant. AR 16-17.
Congress has provided a limited scope of judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits under the Act. In reviewing findings of fact with respect to such determinations, this Court must determine whether the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). Substantial evidence means "more than a mere scintilla," Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971), but less than a preponderance. Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119, n. 10 (9th Cir. 1975). It is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. The record as a whole must be considered, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's conclusion. Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). In weighing the evidence and making findings, the Commissioner must apply the proper legal standards. E.g., Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1988). This Court must uphold the Commissioner's determination that the claimant is not disabled if the Secretary applied the proper legal standards, and if the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health and Human Serv., 812 F.2d 509, 510 (9th Cir. 1987).
In order to qualify for benefits, a claimant must establish that he is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c (a)(3)(A). A claimant must show that he has a physical or mental impairment of such severity that he is not only unable to do her previous work, but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. Quang Van Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1456 (9th Cir. 1989). The burden is on the claimant to establish disability. Terry v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 1990).
Sequential Evaluation
Pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code section 1382c(a)(3)(A), in order to qualify for benefits, a claimant must establish that he or she is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically-determinable physical or mental impairment which has lasted, or which can be expected to last, for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. The evidence must show that the claimant has a physical or mental impairment of such severity that he or she is not only unable to do his or her previous work, but cannot, considering age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. Quang Van Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d at 1456.
In an effort to achieve uniformity of decisions, the Secretary has
promulgated regulations which contain, inter alia, a five-step
sequential analysis to be employed by the ALJ in determining whether a
claimant is physically or mentally disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)-(e) & 416.920(a)-(g). If, during any point of this review,
it is determined that the claimant is not disabled, the claim is not
to be considered further. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) & 416.920(a).
This five-step analysis can be summarized as follows: (1)
determination of whether the claimant is engaged in substantial
gainful activity; if so engaged, the claimant is not presumed disabled
and the analysis ends; (2) if not engaged in substantial gainful
activity, determination of whether the claimant has a severe
impairment; if not, the claimant is not presumed disabled and the
analysis ends; (3) if the claimant has a severe impairment,
determination of whether any such severe impairment meets any of the
impairments listed in the regulations;*fn5 if so, the
claimant is disabled and the analysis ends;*fn6 (4) if
the claimant's
impairment is not listed, determination of whether the impairment
prevents the claimant from performing his or her past work;*fn7
if not, the claimant is not presumed disabled and the
analysis ends; and (5) if the impairment prevents the claimant from
performing his or her past work, determination of whether the claimant
can engage in other types of substantial gainful work that exist in
the national economy;*fn8 if so, the claimant is not
disabled and the analysis ends.
The claimant has the initial burden of proving the existence of a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Terry v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d at 1275. The claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability by showing that a physical or mental impairment prevents him or her from engaging in his or her previous occupation (steps 1 through 4 in the analysis outlined above). Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1984); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f) & 416.920(f). However, once the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the Secretary. Hammock v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1209 (9th Cir. 1989). The Secretary bears the burden of establishing the existence of alternative jobs available to the claimant, given his or her age, education, and medical-vocational background (step 5 in the analysis outlined above). In an appropriate case, the Secretary may meet this burden through application of the medical-vocational guidelines set forth in the regulations.*fn9 See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 ("Appendix 2"); Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (1983); Odle v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 439, 440 (9th Cir. 1983). If the guidelines do not accurately describe a claimant's limitations, the Secretary may not rely on them alone to show availability of jobs for the claimant. Desrosiers v. Secretary, 846 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1988).*fn10
Diagnosis versus Disability
Plaintiff is advised that the mere diagnosis of an impairment is not sufficient to sustain a finding of disability. Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d at 1549. Therefore, despite Plaintiff's assertions that he has been diagnosed with significant impairments to his right shoulder, as well as his spine, these diagnoses alone do not entitle him to a finding of disability.
In fact, ALJ Kopicki's findings acknowledge the severity of Plaintiff's shoulder impairments, and also recognize the herniated disc in his cervical spine. See AR 11. But those findings do not preclude the ALJ from finding that Plaintiff is capable of performing some other work - work that would take into account the limitations caused by those severe impairments -and thus is not disabled.
Analysis of Plaintiff's Complaint
This Court interprets Plaintiff's complaint to assert the following errors by the ALJ: (1) Plaintiff's depression should have been found to be a severe impairment; (2) the medical opinions were not properly considered; (3) the credibility determination is erroneous; and (4) the hypothetical questions posed to the VE were improper. (See Doc. 19.)
A. Plaintiff's Depression
Plaintiff references his depression, including a desire to be left alone, the need for increased sleep, and crying, throughout his complaint. Therefore, this Court construes these references to amount to a claim that the ALJ erred at step two of the sequential analysis by not finding Plaintiff's depression to be a severe impairment.
At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must conclude whether Plaintiff suffers from a "severe" impairment. The regulations define a non-severe impairment as one that does not significantly limit the claimant's physical and mental ability to do basic work activities. An impairment is not severe "if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has 'no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work.'" Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273');">80 F. 3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). To satisfy step two's requirement of a severe impairment, the claimant must prove the existence of a physical or mental impairment by providing medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings; the claimant's own statement of symptoms alone will not suffice. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508 & 416.908. The effects of all symptoms must be evaluated on the basis of a medically determinable impairment which can be shown to be the cause of the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 & 416.929. An overly stringent application of the severity requirement violates the statute by denying benefits to claimants who do meet the statutory definition of disabled. Corrao v. Shalala, 20 F.3d 943, 949 (9th Cir. 1994).
The step two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless or frivolous claims. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153-154 (1987). Further, the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant's impairments on his ability to function, without regard to whether each alone was sufficiently severe. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B). The combined effect "shall be considered throughout the disability determination process. Id. The adjudicator's role at step two is further explained by SSR 85-28:
A determination that an impairment(s) is not severe requires a careful evaluation of the medical findings which describe the impairment(s) and an informed judgment about its (their) limiting effects on the individual's physical and mental ability(ies) to perform basic work activities; thus, an assessment of function is inherent in the medical evaluation process itself. At the second step of sequential evaluation, then, medical evidence alone is evaluated in order to assess the effects of the impairment(s) on ability to do basic work activities.
Here, the ALJ identified Plaintiff's right shoulder injury and herniated disc in the cervical spine to be severe impairments. AR 11-12. However, the ALJ also determined that Plaintiff's depression was non-severe. He reasoned as follows:
The claimant's medically determinable mental impairment of depression does not cause more than minimal limitation in the claimant's ability to perform basic mental work activities and is therefore nonsevere.
In making this finding, I have considered the four broad functional areas set out in the disability regulations for evaluating mental disorders and in section
12.00C of the Listing of Impairments. These four broad functional areas are known as the "paragraph B" criteria.
The first functional area is activities of daily living. In this area, the claimant has mild limitation. The claimant testified that he lives with his father and his girlfriend. He said he takes care of his personal needs, has a driver's license and drives occasionally, watches TV, and uses a computer. He told Dr. Hirokawa that he also does laundry.
The next functional area is social functioning. In this area, the claimant has mild limitation. The claimant has admitted that he can relate to other people beyond giving and receiving instruction. He testified that he lives with his father and girlfriend.
The third functional area is concentration, persistence or pace. In this area, the claimant has mild limitation. The claimant has admitted that he can comprehend and follow instructions, perform simple as well as complex and varied tasks, and maintain a work pace appropriate to a given workload.
The fourth functional area is episodes of decompensation. In this area, the claimant has experienced no episodes of decompensation which have been of extended duration. There is no evidence of any such event.
Because the claimant's medically determinable mental impairment causes no more than "mild" limitation in any of the first three functional areas and "no" episodes of decompensation which have been of extended duration, it is nonsevere.
AR 11-12, internal citations omitted. ALJ Kopicki carefully evaluated the medical findings in this regard. The ALJ referenced the comprehensive psychiatric evaluation performed by psychiatrist Greg Hirokawa, and this Court's review of this evaluation and the medical record confirms the ALJ's findings. See AR 461-462, 504-515, 549-551, 552-556.
More particularly, following a mental status examination, Dr. Hirokawa found, in relevant part, that Plaintiff's behavior was cooperative and his attitude was appropriate, his psychomotor functioning was within normal limits, his speech, thought content and affect were appropriate, and his mood was mildly depressed. He was oriented times three, and was of average intelligence. AR 554. His recent and remote memories were intact and his concentration was adequate. AR 555. Dr. Hirokawa diagnosed a depressive disorder not otherwise specified, generalized anxiety disorder, and polysubstance abuse in reported remission at Axis I, and noted "Rule out personality disorder [not otherwise specified]" at Axis II. AR 555. Dr. Hirokawa identified Plaintiff's symptoms of depression and anxiety as "within the mild range." AR 555. With regard to a functional assessment, Dr. Hirokawa determined Plaintiff is mildly limited in the following areas: ability to remember location and work-like procedures; ability to remember, understand and carry out very short and simple instructions; ability to understand and remember detailed instructions; ability to maintain attention and concentration for extended period; ability to accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from a supervisor; ability to exhibit social judgment and awareness; ability to perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance and be punctual; ability to function independently and sustain an ordinary routine without special supervision; ability complete a normal workday and workweek without interruption from psychologically-based symptoms; ability to interact with co-workers; and, ability to withstand the stress of a routine workday and to deal with changes in work setting. AR 556.
Simply put, Dr. Hirokawa did not find one area in which Plaintiff was more than mildly limited as a result of his depression and anxiety. Plaintiff's own statements in this regard do not suffice. In sum, the step-two finding by the ALJ that Plaintiff's depression was non-severe is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is free of legal error.
B. The Medical Opinions
Plaintiff contends throughout his opening brief that the ALJ erred by omitting references to certain language stated or found within the medical evidence. (Doc. 19.) The Commissioner contends that no error occurred. (Doc. 20.)
Applicable Legal Standard
Cases in this circuit distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant (nonexamining physicians). As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987). At least where the treating doctor's opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for "clear and convincing" reasons. Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir. 1991). Even if the treating doctor's opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the Commissioner may not reject this opinion without providing "specific and legitimate reasons" supported by substantial evidence in the record for so doing. Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983).
The opinion of an examining physician is, in turn, entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a nonexamining physician. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990); Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1984). As is the case with the opinion of a treating physician, the Commissioner must provide "clear and convincing" reasons for rejecting the uncontradicted opinion of an examining physician. Pitzer, 908 F.2d at 506. And like the opinion of a treating doctor, the opinion of an examining doctor, even if contradicted by another doctor, can only be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 1995).
The opinion of a nonexamining physician cannot, by itself, constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection of the opinion of either an examining physician or a treating physician. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d at 506 n. 4; Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d at 1456. In some cases, however, the ALJ can reject the opinion of a treating or examining physician, based in part on the testimony of a nonexamining medical advisor. E.g., Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751-55 (9th Cir. 1989); Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d at 1043; Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179 (9th Cir. 1995). For example, in Magallanes, the Ninth Circuit explained that in rejecting the opinion of a treating physician, "the ALJ did not rely on [the nonexamining physician's] testimony alone to reject the opinions of Magallanes's treating physicians . . .." Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 752.
Rather, there was an abundance of evidence that supported the ALJ's decision: the ALJ also relied on laboratory test results, on contrary reports from examining physicians, and on testimony from the claimant that conflicted with her treating physician's opinion. Id. at 751-52.
Plaintiff is advised that an ALJ is not required to comment on every detail in every report. As noted in Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-1395 (9th Cir. 1984), "[t]he Secretary . . . need not discuss all evidence presented to [him]. Rather, []he must explain why 'significant probative evidence has been rejected.'" As explained below, the ALJ met this burden.
ALJ Kopicki's Findings
The ALJ determined as follows:
The claimant had open reduction and internal fixation on the right shoulder in May 1997 and had the hardware removed in August 1997. There is no indication of any further difficulty until he sustained a work-related injury to the shoulder in February 2005. In July 2005 he underwent repair of a right shoulder rotator cuff tear with impingement. Physical therapy records from June 2005 through December 2005 indicate the claimant had some problems using his right arm after surgery but that he did make progress. However, subsequent radiologic studies established that the surgery was unsuccessful and the claimant continued temporarily totally disabled while he awaited approval for more surgery.
Treating orthopedic surgeon Dr. Thomas performed the partial rotator cuff repair in February 2007 and physical therapy and home exercises were prescribed. By August 2007 Dr. Thomas found the claimant's condition to be "permanent and stationary" and he released him to modified work involving no lifting more than 25 pounds, and no forceful pushing, pulling, gripping, twisting or overhead activities with the right upper extremity. At that time, the claimant said he was doing well; he had no limp, and his neck and upper extremities were relatively unremarkable.
Concurrent records from treating physician Dr. Edwards from February 2006-July 2009 indicate he primarily treated the claimant with medication management for depression secondary to his shoulder pain. In his Permanent and Stationary report of September 18, 2007, he made no residual functional capacity assessment, but concluded that, according to Worker's Compensation guidelines, the claimant had a 10% impairment rating for his right upper extremity and a 5% rating for the whole person; he could not return to his customary work. There are only four brief statements between December 2007 and July 2009 regarding ongoing medication pain management, despite a November 2007 MRI of the right shoulder that showed a full-thickness tear of the posterior fiber of the distal tendon with tendon retraction of the related muscles and postoperative and moderate degenerative changes.
In his December 2007 Agreed Medial Examiner report, orthopedic surgeon Dr. Orcutt diagnosed partial ankylosis of the right shoulder with reconstruction of a massive right rotator cuff tear and residual left acromioclavicular separation, herniated nuclear pulposus at C6-7 with left radiculitis, and partial ankylosis of the left shoulder. He agreed that the claimant's condition had become "permanent and stationary" on August 13, 2007 as determined by Dr. Thomas. He concluded that the claimant cannot do heavy work with his right upper extremity, strenuous overhead work with this left shoulder, or heavy lifting and repetitive motions of the neck, and reaffirmed these limitations in July 2008. I have adopted and incorporated Dr. Orcutt's assessment of the claimant's ability with his left upper extremity into the established residual functional capacity.
In November 2007, Agreed Medical Examiner (Psychiatry) Dr. Gottlieb diagnosed pain disorder associated with both psychological factors and a general medical condition, alcohol abuse by history, and personality disorder not otherwise specified. He concluded that the claimant became "permanent and stationary" from a psychiatric standpoint when he reached that status physically. He rated the GAF[*fn11 ] at 62, suggesting some mild symptoms for some difficulty in social, occupational or school functioning but generally functioning "pretty well," but did not assess the claimant's ability to work. However, the claimant told Dr. Gottlieb that he believed he had the ability to comprehend and follow instructions, to perform simple and repetitive tasks, to maintain a work pace appropriate to a given workload, to perform complex and varied tasks, to relate to other people beyond giving and receiving instructions, and to communicate with people and influence them.
In April 2008, the claimant's most recent psychological "primary treating physician," Dr. Richardson, agreed with Dr. Gottlieb's opinion, stating that the claimant could return to his usual job from a psychological point of view; he could return without restriction. The following month, however, Dr. Richardson signed a Worker's Compensation form stating that the claimant is to remain off work until July 29, 2008. He gives no basis for this contradictory statement (no objective findings), and merely reiterates pain related to the claimant's right arm. Consequently, I have given little weight to this second unsubstantiated opinion.
Concurrently, consultative psychologist Dr. Hirokawa diagnosed depressive disorder not otherwise specified, general anxiety disorder polysubstance abuse in reported remission, and rated the GAF at 61. Reporting that the claimant's mental symptoms appeared to be within the mild range and primarily due to his physical problems and associated limitation, he concluded that the claimant is only "mildly limited" in the requisite work-related abilities; specifically, he is mildly limited in his ability to understand, carry out, and remember simple and detailed instructions, deal appropriately with the public, supervisors and co-workers, maintain attention and concentration for extended periods, and withstand the stress and pressure of an 8-hour workday.
The State agency medical consultants concluded that the claimant can lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand and/or walk 6 hours and sit 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; he can do no pushing or pulling with his dominant right upper extremity, but can climb occasionally, he must avoid work activity at or above shoulder level with the right upper extremity; the claimant's depression is not severe and therefore produces no mental limitations. I have given this opinion substantial weight because it is consistent with the opinions of the claimant's treating surgeon, treating physician and examining physicians discussed above.
AR 13-15, emphasis added & internal citations omitted.
ALJ Kopicki agreed with the opinions of Plaintiff's treating and examining orthopedic surgeons (Thomas and Orcutt) and expressly incorporated Dr. Orcutt's limitations into his RFC findings. Thus, the ALJ did not commit any error.
The ALJ adopted the opinion of the examining psychiatrists (Gottlieb and Hirokawa) over the opinion of treating physician Richardson. In doing so, the ALJ identified specific and legitimate reasons; namely, internal inconsistency, reliance upon Plaintiff's subjective reports, and a lack of clinical findings. All are proper reasons to afford Dr. Richardson's July 2008 opinion little weight. See Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 184 (9th Cir. 1995) (rejection of examining psychologist's functional assessment which conflicted with his own written report and test results); see also Buckner-Larkin v. Astrue, 2011 WL 4361652 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2011) (same); Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 1999) (physician's opinion based to a large extent on claimant's own accounts of symptoms and limitations may be disregarded where those complaints have been properly discounted); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d at 751 (a lack of supporting clinical findings is a valid reason for rejecting a treating physician's opinion); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 948, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (an ALJ may also reject the treating physician's opinion because it was based on the claimant's discredited subjective complaints); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 605 (9th Cir. 1989) (same).
This Court has carefully reviewed the opinions referenced within the ALJ's findings (AR 398-399, 410, 434-435, 463-497, 516-547, 552-556, 559-565, 566-572) and the entire medical record. ALJ Kopicki's findings regarding the weight he afforded to the various medical opinions in this matter are supported by substantial evidence and are free of legal error.
C. The ALJ's Credibility Findings
This Court construes Plaintiff's complaint to present an argument that the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff's pain complaints not credible. (Doc. 19.) The Commissioner contends the ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff's pain complaints. (Doc. 20 at 8.)
A two-step analysis applies at the administrative level when considering a claimant's subjective symptom testimony. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996). First, the claimant must produce objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce some degree of the symptom or pain alleged. Id. at 1281-1282. If the claimant satisfies the first step and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ may reject the claimant's testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms only if he makes specific findings that include clear and convincing reasons for doing so. Id. at 1281. The ALJ must "state which testimony is not credible and what evidence suggests the complaints are not credible." Mersman v. Halter, 161 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2001), quotations & citations omitted ("The lack of specific, clear, and convincing reasons why Plaintiff's testimony is not credible renders it impossible for [the] Court to determine whether the ALJ's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence"); SSR 96-7p (ALJ's decision "must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual and to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the individual's statements and reasons for that weight").
An ALJ can consider many factors when assessing the claimant's credibility. See Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997). The ALJ can consider the claimant's reputation for truthfulness, prior inconsistent statements concerning his symptoms, other testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid, unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment, failure to follow a prescribed course of treatment, claimant's daily activities, claimant's work record, or the observations of treating and examining physicians. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d at 1284; Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 638 (2007). "An ALJ is not 'required to believe every allegation of disabling pain' or other non-exertional impairment." Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d at 635, citation omitted.
The first step in assessing Plaintiff's subjective complaints is to determine whether Plaintiff's condition could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the severe impairments of right shoulder arthritis and rotator cuff tear - status post multiple surgeries, and a history of a herniated disc in the cervical spine. AR 11-12. ALJ Kopicki found that Plaintiff's "medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms," but that Plaintiff's statements concerning "the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment." AR 13. This finding satisfied step one of the credibility analysis. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d at 1281-1282.
"Despite the inability to measure and describe it, pain can have real and severe debilitating effects; it is, without a doubt, capable of entirely precluding a claimant from working." Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d at 601. It is possible to suffer disabling pain even where the degree of pain is unsupported by objective medical findings. Id. "In order to disbelieve a claim of excess pain, an ALJ must make specific findings justifying that decision." Id., citing Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d at 755. The findings must convincingly justify the ALJ's rejection of the plaintiff's excess pain testimony. Id. at 602. However, an ALJ cannot be required to believe every allegation of disabling pain. "This holds true even where the claimant introduces medical evidence showing that he has an ailment reasonably expected to produce some pain." Id. at 603.
Specifically here, ALJ Kopicki made the following findings:
At the hearing, the [claimant] seemed sincere, but his testimony that his pain was 10/10 all the time is not supported by the record or by his other statements. He demonstrated use of the right arm as he reached to get some Kleenex at one point. He uses a lot of pain medication, but also applied for and received unemployment checks in 2009, indicating he is available, ready and willing to work. Indeed, a clinical note dated July 2, 2007 reported that the claimant stated he was fired from his job because there was no light duty, suggesting that he did not quit working [] solely for a medical reason.
He testified that he has had four surgeries on his right shoulder and has constant pain; allegedly he has been told he would eventually need a total replacement after he reaches age 65. He said he cannot sleep at night because of the pain, but admitted that his medications do help somewhat, although they sometimes made him dizzy. He also admitted that he has not participated in any recent physical therapy. He said he mows the yard with a rider lawn mower, washes dishes, drive[s] occasionally, attends church, watches TV and uses a computer. Although he said he lives with his father and girlfriend, he said he has emotional problems that make him insecure and antisocial.
The claimant's girlfriend has said he can prepare complete meals but it takes him about 15 minutes longer than before his injuries, he can make his bed, water the lawn, drive a car and go shopping. She has also indicated that he visits his grandchildren, but because of his physical limitations, doesn't like to be around people.
For the reasons mentioned, not the least the medical source opinions of record, I find the claimant's subjective complaints . . . credible only to the extent the claimant is limited as found in this decision.
AR 15, internal quotations omitted.
Here, the ALJ provided a number of specific reasons for discrediting Plaintiff's testimony, and identified specific testimony or evidence related thereto. ALJ Kopicki considered the fact the medical records indicate Plaintiff's symptoms improved with prescription medications. This is a proper consideration in assessing credibility. Warre Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (impairments that are effectively controlled with medication are not disabling). The ALJ also noted the objective medical evidence regarding Plaintiff's physical complaints did not fully support his subjective complaints. Again, this was a proper consideration. See Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601-602 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding a mild or minor medical condition with all other tests reporting normal provides a basis for rejecting claimant's testimony of severity of symptoms); Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (inconsistencies between the record and medical evidence supports a rejection of a claimant's credibility). Next, the ALJ considered Plaintiff's activities of daily living and relationships with others. These too are proper considerations when making a credibility determination. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d at 638; Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2005). Finally, ALJ Kopicki noted that Plaintiff received unemployment benefits during the period he alleged disability, thereby indicating an ability to work. This Court finds this too is a proper consideration in a determination regarding credibility. See Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d at 792.
Moreover, the ALJ gave multiple reasons for discounting Plaintiff's testimony. Even were one reason relied upon by the ALJ in his credibility determination held to be error, any error was harmless. See Carmickle v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Batson v. Comm. of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004) ("So long as there remains 'substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusions on . . . credibility' and the error 'does not negate the validity of the ALJ's ultimate [credibility] conclusion' such is deemed harmless and does not warrant reversal").
D. Testimony of the VE
Plaintiff questions the validity of the hypothetical questions posed to the VE by the ALJ. (Doc. 19.) The Commissioner counters than no error occurred, or alternatively, that any error was harmless. (Doc. 8-9.)
"Hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert must set out all the limitations and restrictions of the particular claimant . . .." Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988). The testimony of a VE "is valuable only to the extent that it is supported by medical evidence." Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 1982). The VE's opinion about a claimant's RFC has no evidentiary value if the assumptions in the hypothetical are not supported by the record. Embrey, 849 F.2d at 422. Nonetheless, an ALJ is only required to present the VE with those limitations he finds to be credible and supported by the evidence. Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2001).
Here, the ALJ posed two hypothetical questions to VE Chaparro. AR 39-41. The ALJ's first hypothetical presented VE Chaparro with those limitations he found to be credible and supported by the evidence; in other words, the hypothetical comported with the findings of the state agency and examining physicians, and even Plaintiff's treating surgeons. Compare AR 49- 51 to AR 455-459, 548-551 & 566-572. The second hypothetical is plainly based upon Plaintiff's own testimony. ALJ Kopicki asked the VE two hypothetical questions: one based upon the medical opinion and evidence, and the other based upon Plaintiff's testimony. Yet, the ALJ was not required to accept Plaintiff's testimony as credible, and thus relatedly, he was not required to accept the VE's testimony that no work was available for such an individual.
To the degree the ALJ may have erred by referring to Plaintiff as a "younger individual age 18-49" in his written findings (see AR 16), he correctly referenced Plaintiff's then-current age when posing the hypothetical questions to the VE. See AR 49 ("assuming an individual ranging in age from - - a hypothetical individual ranging in age from 48 to, 48 to 51 years"). Thus, any error is harmless. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d at 679 ("A decision of the ALJ will not be reversed for errors that are harmless" [citing Curry v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 1990)]).
Hence, ALJ Kopicki complied with the regulations and law. As a result, his findings are supported by substantial evidence and are free of legal error.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and is based on proper legal standards. Accordingly, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's appeal from the administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff, Dennis A. Sanchez.
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:
Calidad de atención exelente Nada para comentar
Agradable, eficiente, y un amable personal. Buena ubicación. La comida era buena. Instalación satisfactoria, aunque las zonas comunes no estaban tan limpias como deberían estarlo. Fiesta hasta las 3 de la mañana en la habitación de al lado nos hizo dormir muy mal.
La habitación estaba limpia y el precio era bueno. Decidí alojarme lejos del centro de convenciones para poder ahorrarme un poco de dinero y este hotel tiene buenas valoraciones No pude dormir mucho. La puerta no aislaba bien y se podía oír a la gente entrando y saliendo de las habitaciones dando portazos. Enfrente de mi habitación, había un perro pequeño ladrando hasta muy tarde. Las chicas de la habitación contigua eran ruidosas y fumaban marihuana y cigarrillos. Aunque el era de no fumadores, todo el tercer piso olía a humo. La fruta del desayuno sabía amarga. O era vieja o tenía algún tipo de conservante. Para mi lo importante es el descanso y el confort, y respecto a esto, totalmente deficiente.
We stayed here for a race nearby. Since it is in the Tech Center (lots of offices and hotels catering to business travelers), the area is quiet on the weekends. The lobby has flavored water and coffee available, and there were some good oatmeal cranberry cookies in the afternoon. It was nice that check-out is at noon, so we had plenty of time after our race to come back and shower before checking out. Staff was friendly and helpful too!
The hotel was very clean with great room service and a nice cafe in the lobby. The staff was very friendly and helpful as well. The bed was terrible. The bed has a firmness adjustment but anything less that max and you were sleeping across 3 metal bars. Pillows were also very uncomfortable.
The staff is very inviting. It's very clean, 25 min drive to downtown. Overall great experience. I would definitely come back
Clean, free internet, free parking No safe in the room
I liked how friendly and eager the staff was to help out. The facility was very clean and the location was very convenient. My daughter wanted just a scoop of yogurt and a handful of berries for breakfast. We still had to pay the $12.95 for like $3.00 worth of food. The policy could use an update.
Beds were very uncomfortable and heat in the room didn't work.
Very clean No continental breakfast
The staff was friendly. The room I stayed in was very clean and comfortable. I had a gorgeous view of the mountains.
The location Our room was above the atrium. It was LOUD at all hours. The fan in the room was extremely loud. It was a horrible experience. It makes me rethink using Marriott in the future.
Staff was responsive to any issues, extra towels, coffee, parking gate not working etc. Didnt spend much time at hotel so can't say anything about the facilities. Everything was clean and operational.
Great hotel in terms of technology, nice room, very cool and would be great if staying for more than 1 night. Poor service, no name use, no "little things", like it was my birthday and they never said anything, and the restaurant was good, but again, service was bad. Asked for late check out and house keeper came three times, didnt speak english and said I didn't when I did.. I would stay again, but only if I couldnt find something better


text:
"[Talibanistan] is written with analytic rigor, historical depth, and lucid prose. This is the one book to read on Afghanistan now." Fareed Zakaria
"One of the most insightful and nuanced books available about the most dangerous neighborhood in the world, and one of the world's murkiest military-religious groups. This collection of essays by experts is a must-read for Af-Pak practitioners, analysts, and enthusiasts."Omar Samad, United States Institute of Peace and former Afghan Ambassador to Canada and France
"When the Taliban rose to power in Afghanistan nearly two decades ago, they confounded outside analysts. The extremism of their ideology and actions-and their own claims of religious purity-masked the diversity and complexity of their movement. After the September 11 attacks, American and N.A.T.O. policymakers tried to ignore the Taliban, dismissing them as a defeated and unpopular force as they concentrated on Al Qaeda. Now it is evident that the Taliban are a resilient force that will shape politics and violence in Afghanistan and neighboring countries for years to come. Talibanistan is an essential, sophisticated, and highly readable guide, one that takes the complexity of its subject seriously but delivers deep, reliable analysis about an enduring foreign policy and security challenge."Steve Coll, author of Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
"This timely and superb array of richly detailed essays by both established scholars and emerging experts captures the essence of the conflict that rages in the unforgiving landscape that is the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region-a conflict now seeping into Pakistan proper." Shuja Nawaz, author of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within
"Ultimately, the book offers a glimpse into a little known but much discussed group, giving the reader an improved understanding of the complexities in this region. ... Recommended." CHOICE


text:
Ty Burrell
9,355pages onAdd New Page
this wiki
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Ty Burrell portrayed Leonard Samson in The Incredible Hulk.
- Ty Burrell also voiced Captain Marvel in The Super Hero Squad Show.
External Links
- Ty Burrell on Wikipedia
- Ty Burrell on IMDb


text:
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics said that in September, 64.7 percent of freight between the United States and its partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement was transported by truck.
The German ocean carrier's employees demonstrated Friday in Hamburg, seeking job protection in the wake of the announcement that the company will be acquired by Maersk Line.
American Shipper is gathering feedback from shippers, carriers, and others to better understand perspectives on how well the Federal Maritime Commission is doing as chief U.S. regulator of the shipping industry.
Registration takes less than 1 minute.
The joint container venture between Japan's 'Big 3' will have a fleet capacity of 1.38 million TEUs, making it the sixth largest in the world, and when their 23 new ships are delivered, the merged operation will become the fifth largest carrier.
The deal, which involves Hanjin's Asia-U.S. assets, does not include Hanjin's five, 6,500-TEU containerships or Hanjin's 54 percent stake in Total Terminals International at the Port of Long Beach, according to several media reports.
Bulk shipping company Korea Line Corp. has been picked over Hyundai Merchant Marine to acquire Hanjin's operations between Asia and the United States.


text:
Twitter Link Facebook link
The International Anglican Family Network (IAFN) has launched a global campaign to register births, partnering with government and other agencies.
become anEkklesia Partner
Select the newsletter(s) to which you want to subscribe or unsubscribe.
This Christmas time, a new Nativity video is imagining the welcome Mary and Joseph would receive if they arrived in the UK seeking asylum. As...
No upcoming events available
Tweets by @Ekklesia_co_uk


text:
Araliya Bed and Breakfast Inn
33 Cap Park Hill, Cap Estate, Rodney Bay, Gros Islet, Saint Lucia Show Map
Check in from 3:00 PM / Check out prior to 11:00 AM
Araliya Bed and Breakfast Inn: Find photos, reviews, information, amenities and compare prices for 3 stars hotels in Gros Islet, Saint Lucia.
Set within the picturesque countryside of Gros Islet, Araliya Bed and Breakfast Inn provides comfortable accommodation and a wide range of facilities, including a concierge.
Hotel description
Araliya Boutique Bed & Breakfast Gros Islet has 4 rooms that are equipped with all the necessities to ensure a comfortable stay.
George F. L. Charles Airport is less than a 15-minute drive from the bed & breakfast. Government House Saint Lucia and Derek Walcott Square are an easy car trip away.
Hotel features
Cable / Satellite TV, TV
Fitness Room/Gym
Availability and Prices
Booking Site
Room Type
Per room
Per night
Per night
Users who viewed Araliya Bed and Breakfast Inn also viewed these 3 stars Gros Islet hotels:
Apartment Espoir
P.O. Box 269, Gros Islet
P.O. Box 269, Gros Islet
Coco Kreole
Boulevard P.O. Box 65, Gros Islet
Boulevard P.O. Box 65, Gros Islet
Rainbow Gros Islet
Reduit Beach La Clery, Gros Islet
Reduit Beach La Clery, Gros Islet
Search hotels
based on
9 reviews
Nearest hotels
- Villas on the Green Cap Estate Gros Islet
0.1 miles
- La Panache Holiday Apartments
0.2 miles
- Italian Guesthouse
0.2 miles


text:
I had a great experience with Gurkan from GMA tiling. He was quick to response to my add, had great communication, and provided an excellent service. He was efficient and hard working, was careful working around my home, and the finished tiling job was fantastic. I definitely ..
We could not have wished for a better result on the repair of our decking. John was a real professional and demonstrated his high level of craftsmanship. He was reliable and prompt, he listened and made suggestions and he worked solidly to complete the job and meet our deadline..
Get your job done right
We verify our businesses
Only hire the best
Free to request and free to hire!
Abbotsford, NSW
Repair, Replace
Bathroom - Floor
1 - 5 square metres
This is repair work from a recent job. The shower pan needs relaying, and there are a couple of tiles that sit proud. Have had a building inspector issue an RO for defective work, but I do not trus...Make a similar request


text:
Slide to see the images
Meet our little trooper, Lieutenant Dan! Lt. Dan arrived at The Barking Lot in August, 2016 from San Bernardino. Lt. Dan's pre-TBL story is a bit sad. He and his brother, Conor Kenny (also a TBL dog), were found after being hit by a car. They were brought to the vet clinic at San Bernardino shelter due to their extensive injuries. While Conor Kenny had a crushed pelvis and broken femur, Lt. Dan's injuries were even more severe in that he had a fractured spine leading to total hind quarter paralysis. Both dogs were scheduled to be put to sleep until TBL swooped in, rescued them, and found them both foster homes where they could have their medical needs treated and cared for. Lt. Dan is now in his foster home and thriving! We did have our neurology partners evaluate him and the opinion is that while Lt. Dan may not ever regain movement or feeling in his hind quarters, that won't stop him from living a very happy, fulfilled life. Lt. Dan is also a great candidate for a doggie wheelchair, and is being fitted for one as we speak. The wheelchair will help him walk around town just like any other normal dog, as it will support his back end while his front legs do the walking/heavy lifting (video to come). At five-years-old, Lt. Dan is fully-grown at about 9.5 pounds. Based on his gorgeous chestnut-colored coat, wavy hair, and big ears, we think Lt. Dan is a mix between a Chihuahua and a Papillon. While Lt. Dan has definitely been through some tough times, you would never know it from meeting him. Lt. Dan is incredibly sweet, very affectionate, and so playful! He loves doggie toys and loves to scoot around his foster home, gathering up all the squeak toys, and piling them in his bed. He also loves the other dogs in his foster home, and will happily play for hours (and lucky for him, his foster siblings accommodate his special play style). Lt. Dan is also GREAT with cats, and is generally just desperate to be sitting next to or laying with the resident foster kitties. While Lt. Dan does have some special needs, he is actually an incredibly easy dog to care for. Currently, he is on a low residue diet and a regular bladder expressing routine and his foster mom reports that he is actually one of the easiest dogs she's ever had. Lieutenant Dan is crate trained and very treat motivated, and generally just aims to please. While Lt. Dan loves his foster home, he would love a home to call his own (and he would love if that home had a dog or two already living there, as Lt. Dan doesn't particularly like being alone). This happy, bouncy, playful little guy is living his best life and is ready to share that life with a loving adopter! If you have room in your heart and home for a pup like Lt. Dan, submit an app today.
If you'd like to meet Lt. Dan, please visit http://www.thebarkinglot.net/adoption-application. For more information on this dog's breed, copy & paste the following URL(s) into your browser: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/chion.htm


text:
Everyone part of biosecurity team: govt
The government wants ordinary Kiwis to play a bigger role in New Zealand's biosecurity system.
Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy on Tuesday unveiled the new Biosecurity 2025 discussion document, which sets out a broad plan for protecting New Zealand's land and water from harmful pests and diseases.
While the country's biosecurity system is doing its job, it's coming under pressure from growing trade and tourism, higher volumes of mail parcels, climate change and established pests.
"The primary sector is a significant part of New Zealand's economy, making up around half of all our exports. We need to protect our producers from unwanted pests and diseases," Mr Guy said.
"In the future we can expect challenges from an increasing number of tourists and imports bringing a greater diversity of risks. Opportunities from new technologies will better connect people and information to identify and quickly act on risks."
There are five key areas of focus:
* Making every New Zealander and New Zealand business "part of the biosecurity team"
* Making the best use of innovation, science and technology
* Using all available information to better inform risk management in real time
* System-wide leadership and inclusive governance
* A capable and sustainable workforce and world-class infrastructure.
Submissions on the discussion document close on September 9.
More in News
'Catwoman' 'attacked boyfriend with hot wax'Mirror
Is Key dumping Blues for the Crusaders?Radio New Zealand
'Incredible' dino discoveryReuters
Three injured in Dairy Flat Highway crashNZ Newswire
Emergency services called to NZDF OrionNZ Newswire
Trump won't fire himself from 'Celebrity Apprentice'The Guardian


text:
cincygrl Review
Very pretty!
I didn't (and never will!) want CZs, but unfortunately I can't afford diamonds. White topaz is just what was looking for and at a GREAT price. And the earring posts are nice and sturdy, too. I'm very happy with this purchase.
- How did the image on site compare with the actual product? exactly
- How accurate was the sizing? perfect
- Please tell us about the quality of the product. beautiful
Was This Review Helpful?


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. EDWARD
J. EGAN, Judge, presiding. Judgment reversed.
The defendant, Lawrence Reddick, was convicted in a bench trial for the sale of a narcotic drug in violation of chapter 38, section 22-3 of the Ill Rev Stats, and was sentenced to serve a term of not less than ten or more than ten years and one day in the Illinois State Penitentiary. The case was appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court and subsequently on March 11, 1968, was transferred to this court. The defendant urges that the judgment be reversed on the grounds that the inconsistency in the statements of a police officer raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, and that proof of defendant's guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
From the record it appears that on the evening of November 4, 1965, one Stephen Cox, a police informer, met with Officer James Arnold and another officer from the Narcotics Unit of the Chicago Police Department. After Cox was searched to determine he did not possess any narcotics or money, he was given a sum of marked money for the purpose of making a controlled purchase of narcotic drugs and also signed a receipt for such money. Cox then proceeded with the officers to the vicinity of the Burgundy Lounge at 6309 South Drexel Blvd., Chicago, Illinois. The police officers parked their unmarked car at 6338 South Drexel Blvd., about one-fourth block away from the Burgundy Lounge. Cox got out of the car on the east side of Drexel Blvd., and proceeded to the lounge while Officer Arnold stood in a doorway on the west side of Drexel. Cox testified the defendant and several other men were just coming out of the lounge as he (Cox) came up to the lounge entrance. After the defendant finished talking with these men, Cox stated that he and the defendant negotiated a sale of narcotics and that Cox gave defendant the marked money. According to Cox, defendant then went in the alley while Cox waited in front of the lounge with the other men. Reddick returned and gave Cox a tinfoil package, whereupon Cox left, returned to the police car and gave the package to the officers. On cross-examination, Cox swore that at no time did he walk into the tavern and further, that after taking the tinfoil package to the officers, he and the officers went to the front window of the lounge and he pointed defendant out to the officers. Cox also admitted he had met defendant for the first time about one week prior to the alleged sale while he was with a friend, but did not know the defendant personally.
Officer Arnold testified that he saw Cox on November 4, 1965, at which time he gave him ten dollars in prerecorded money after searching him for narcotics and/or other money. Cox left the unmarked police car and went to the Burgundy Lounge, where the door opened and Cox either stepped in or stepped out. Arnold stated:
"I don't know whether he got all the way in the tavern or not, but within a matter of a second or two Mr. Cox and a couple of other fellows and the defendant was on the sidewalk."
Arnold continued to testify that all the men were talking but he could not see what was transpiring, as he was about a quarter of a block away from the group. The defendant, so stated Arnold, went into the tavern entranceway, then came out through the package goods entranceway and went into the alley. About ten minutes later, defendant emerged from the alley and rejoined the group in front of the lounge. The defendant, Cox, and the others "huddled" together and then dispersed. Cox returned to the police vehicle and gave Arnold a tinfoil package containing a white powder substance. Arnold stated that Cox and the others were never out of his sight. Officer Arnold, his partner and Cox walked to the Burgundy Lounge where Cox looked in the window and identified defendant as the man who sold him the tinfoil package, and who was the same person Arnold observed going in the tavern, coming out of the package goods store door and entering and returning from the alley. Arnold entered the lounge and arrested defendant, who was in the company of a female companion. On the woman's person was found two one-dollar bills of the prerecorded money. Two other one-dollar bills and a five-dollar bill were recovered from the cash register of the package goods store. (The package goods store was connected to the lounge by a passageway.) On cross-examination Arnold testified that defendant denied making any sale of narcotics and further, that no narcotics or prerecorded money was found on defendant's person. Mr. Voss, the operator of the package goods store, told Arnold he could not determine who gave him the other two prerecorded one-dollar and five-dollar bills. Arnold also was sure that the testimony he gave at the preliminary hearing was similar to his police report, and that he never saw the defendant before the day in question.
It is upon the testimony of Officer Arnold as to what he observed while awaiting the return of Mr. Cox that constitutes the basis of this appeal. At a preliminary hearing conducted on January 27, 1966, Arnold testified that he gave Cox the marked money, whereupon Cox proceeded to the Burgundy Lounge, stayed for about ten minutes, (emphasis added) consummated a controlled purchase of narcotics and returned to the squad car with a tinfoil package containing heroin. Arnold was emphatic that Cox actually went in the lounge and remained there for approximately ten minutes. Relevant portions of Arnold's testimony at the preliminary hearing were as follows:
"Q. (By Assistant State's Attorney) What did he say to you, what did you say to him:
"A. (By Officer Arnold) Officer Williams and I met a police informer who stated that there was one of several people in the vicinty of 63rd and Drexel that he could find in the Burgundy Lounge located at 6309, and he would attempt to make a control purchase of narcotics from these people in question. We searched the informant, found him to be free of all money and narcotics. We gave him $10.00 in prerecorded funds; he signed a receipt for same. He got out of the car, walked to the Burgundy Lounge. He walked on the, walked down the east side of Drexel. I stood in the doorway on the west side of Drexel. He went in the Burgundy Lounge, stayed for approximately ten minutes. He walked back out, walked back to the squad car, joined Officer Williams and I and handed me one tin foil package and said." (Emphasis added.)
"Q. (By Mr. Adam) All right. Now, you are telling the court that he told you he can make a sale, is that correct?
"A. (By Officer Arnold) That is right.
"Q. Make a buy?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. He went, he went where?
"A. To the Burgundy Lounge.
"Q. He left your vision at that time, is that right?
"A. Yes sir; went to the tavern.
"Q. You don't know what he did in there?
"A. No.
"Q. This is the same lounge when you went in it was crowded and full of people with leather jackets on, is that right?
"A. That is correct." (Emphasis added.)
In June, 1966, at the trial of the instant case, the court independently examined Arnold to ascertain the validity of the above testimony:
"THE COURT: Let me see the complete transcript.
"MR ADAM: I haven't seen that myself.
"THE COURT: I'm reading from a portion of the answer:
"`We gave him ten dollars in pre-recorded funds; he signed a receipt for same. He got out of the car, walked to the Burgundy Lounge. He walked down the east side of Drexel. I stood in the doorway on the west side of Drexel. He went in the Burgundy Lounge, stayed for approximately ten minutes. He walked back out, walked back to the squad car, joined Officer Williams and I and handed me one tinfoil package and said '
"Did you give that answer?
"OFFICER ARNOLD: Yes sir, I did.
"THE COURT: Was that true: He went to the Burgundy Lounge and stayed for approximately ten minutes?
"OFFICER ARNOLD: And he went to the lounge, as I testified last week. That is correct, he went to the lounge. I didn't say that he stayed in the lounge. I think I testified before that he was gone, that the defendant was gone for approximately ten minutes, approximately ten or twelve minutes, the whole time.
"THE COURT: No, no. You're referring here in this transcript As the court reporter took it, he says that you testified, `He' referring to Cox.
"OFFICER ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: (Continuing) `went in the Burgundy Lounge and stayed for approximately ten minutes.'
"OFFICER ARNOLD: I didn't mean that he stayed inside the lounge, but I'm sure that's what the transcript said, as you're reading it. I didn't mean to infer that he stayed in the lounge for ten minutes. He was gone for approximately that length of time.
"As I stated before, there is a little as you enter the tavern, there is a little foyer or vestibule, you may call it. He stepped right in and stepped right out; and other fellows were standing on the street and Cox returned. If I stated he stayed in the tavern, I'm sure I was wrong."
It is the defendant's contention that the above inconsistent statements of Officer Arnold amount to perjury, and that knowing use of this perjured testimony by the State resulted in his conviction. Testifying in his own behalf, defendant denied knowing Cox, denied transferring any narcotics to Cox or receiving any money from Cox, and that at no time was he (defendant) ever outside the lounge speaking with Cox.
It is reasonable to conclude that Officer Arnold offered two versions of what occurred on November 4, 1965, when he observed the acts of the defendant and the witness Stephen Cox. Arnold testified at the preliminary hearing that Cox went in the tavern, stayed about ten minutes, came out and gave Arnold the narcotics. In his trial testimony, Arnold placed Cox and the defendant together outside the tavern where he (Arnold) viewed the alleged transaction taking place, although Arnold could not see what was transpiring among the group. This critical contradiction in Arnold's testimony at the hearing and at the trial most certainly affects the weight and credibility to be accorded his testimony. For if it is true that Arnold saw Cox go into the lounge to make the controlled "buy" of narcotics, then Cox's testimony as to the transaction with defendant is uncorroborated, since Arnold could not have seen the dealings outside of the lounge while he was a quarter of a block away.
It is interesting to note also that Arnold did not state in his police report of November 5, 1965, that the man he saw milling around on the street with Cox was the defendant or the same person he later arrested, nor was any mention made in the report about seeing the defendant outside the lounge with Cox. On the other hand, Cox swore he never went into the lounge, and all his dealings with the defendant were outside on the street. If it is true that Cox and defendant were outside of the lounge, as Arnold testified at the trial, could he have seen the alleged sale of narcotics take place from the distance of one quarter block, among a group of men of whom the only one he knew was Cox, since he (Arnold) had never previously seen or known the defendant? Arnold also mentioned he saw a person, whom he says was the defendant, walk into the lounge, then the same person came back outside via the package goods store doors, proceeded into the alley and returned to the group where the transaction was completed.
When we consider the testimony of Cox, a former narcotics addict who was awaiting trial for sale and possession of narcotic drugs and who was arrested for such offense by Officer Arnold in December, 1964, yet who volunteered to make a controlled purchase of narcotics because he thought the authorities would "go easier on me," there is some question that the defendant was convicted of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that Cox, by his own testimony, is a narcotics addict has an important bearing on his credibility, and our courts have held many times that the testimony of a narcotic addict is to be reviewed with great caution. People v. Crump, 5 Ill.2d 251, 125 N.E.2d 615 (1955); People v. Hamby, 6 Ill.2d 559, 129 N.E.2d 746 (1956); People v. Boyd, 17 Ill.2d 321, 161 N.E.2d 311 (1960); People v. Bazemore, 25 Ill.2d 74, 182 N.E.2d 649 (1962). In the instant case the State contends there was corroboration of Cox's testimony, together with the other evidence adduced at the trial. Nevertheless it is our opinion that Arnold's testimony did not corroborate Cox's testimony sufficiently to establish the defendant guilty of the unlawful sale of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Watkins, 68 Ill. App.2d 389, 216 N.E.2d 494 (1966)).
The defendant's contention that Officer Arnold, who testified for the State, committed perjury based upon a difference between his testimony at the trial and his testimony at the preliminary hearing is not, we believe, well founded. No claim of perjury was ever made at the trial, and the issue was raised by the defendant for the first time in a post trial motion to vacate the judgment. Discrepancies or inconsistencies in testimony do not necessarily establish perjury and such a contention falls short of a claim that the State knowingly used perjured testimony. People v. Grayson, 29 Ill.2d 229, 193 N.E.2d 801 (1964); People v. Armstrong, 39 Ill.2d 567, 237 N.E.2d 449 (1968); People v. Tyner, 40 Ill.2d 1, 238 N.E.2d 377 (1968).
In the case at bar, the evidence and the inferences therefrom do not establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
MURPHY and BURMAN, JJ., concur.
© 2002 VersusLaw Inc.
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:
Mr Rubbish Fulham
Category : Other Services Posted : 04/03/2015 Price : Check with seller Location : London(London)
Hotel Metro City is very famous in Karol Bagh, Delhi. This hotel provides hygienic room for customer at very affordable price. We provides deluxe room, super deluxe room, executive Room, family suite room in your budget.
Our focus keep always on coustomer satisfaction. More information about our rooms availability and services you can visit here http://www.hotelmetrocity.in/
Or contact us
Hotel Metro City
12A/6 , Saraswati Marg, W.E.A.,
Channa Market, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi - 110005 (India)
Mobile : +91-9718760392, 9958760761
Phone : 25733561-62
Fax : 011-42503402
E-mail : email@example.com


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.
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
June 3, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF BLAIZE F. AND OTHERS, ABUSED AND/OR NEGLECTED CHILDREN.CLINTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT;v.CHRISTOPHER F., APPELLANT.
Calendar Date: April 21, 2010
Before: Spain, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered October 13, 2009, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to extend the supervision of respondent.
The underlying facts are set forth in earlier appeals (see Matter of Blaize F., 64 AD3d 936 [2009]; Matter of Blaize F., 55 AD3d 974 [2008]; Matter of Blaize F., 50 AD3d 1182 [2008]; Matter of Blaize F., 48 AD3d 1007 [2008]). Briefly stated and as is currently relevant, petitioner brought this proceeding to extend supervision regarding respondent's two stepdaughters and, in that petition, it also requested that respondent be granted unsupervised visitation with his son, Blaize F. At the ensuing hearing, both petitioner and the attorney for Blaize advocated for unsupervised visitation. Petitioner's witnesses unequivocally supported permitting respondent to have unsupervised visitation with Blaize and described in detail the positive interaction between respondent and Blaize as well as respondent's successful completion of pertinent programs. With no proof having been presented opposing unsupervised visitation, Family Court nonetheless produced and admitted into evidence its own exhibit, a Canadian study entitled "A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Treatment of Sexual Offenders: Risk, Need and Responsibility." Subsequently, in the closing statement, petitioner stated that it had erred in including Blaize in the petition and acknowledged that the petition should be dismissed as to him. However, Family Court rendered a decision (that included a lengthy quote from its exhibit) in which it granted the petition as to Blaize and extended the existing requirement for supervised visitation. Respondent appeals.
We reverse as to Blaize. "Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision 'upon a hearing and for good cause shown'" (Matter of Caleb L., 289 AD2d 902, 902 [2001], quoting Family Ct Act § 1054 [b]), and we generally do not disturb such an extension "unless it lacks a sound basis in the record" (Matter of Amanda WW., 43 AD3d 1256, 1257 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Blaize F., 64 AD3d at 937). Here, all the witnesses and all the parties supported unsupervised visitation. Petitioner acknowledged that it should not have even brought the proceeding as to Blaize and agreed with respondent that the petition should be dismissed. Family Court's production of its own exhibit and then relying thereon in disregard to every witness and all the parties was improper (see generally People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63, 67-69 [2002]). The court's determination that the witnesses were unreliable and lacked credibility -- one of whom it had characterized in an earlier matter involving these parties as "credible and highly reliable" -- is unsupported by the record. Finally, we note that the attorney for Blaize has submitted a passionate plea on behalf of the child -- now a six-foot tall teenager -- expressing "terrible frustration" with the limitations imposed and imploring that the petition be dismissed so that he can spend meaningful time with his father. Since the record does not contain a sound or substantial basis supporting the petition and further reveals that Family Court acted arbitrarily, we agree that the petition as to Blaize must be dismissed.
Spain, J.P., Rose, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as granted the petition with respect to Blaize F.; petition dismissed as to Blaize F.; and, as so modified, affirmed.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.
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:
Tony's Ride for a Reason
Posted by South Adelaide Football Club on 15 January 2016
Next Friday, January 22, our Talent Manager and U18s Coach, Tony Bamford, is taking part in the "Ride for a Reason" to help the Cancer Council SA raise funds for cancer research.
"My mum passed away in February 2011 after fighting cancer for several years," said Bamford."I have been riding in this event since 2010 and trying to assist the Cancer Council to raise much needed funds for cancer research at the same time.
"Please help me help those who are effected by cancer by donating as much or little as you can."Tony's "Ride for a Reason" will be the 145km leg of the Tour Down Under Bupa Challenge and his fundraising goal is $2000.
All donations to the cause are greatly appreciated!
To donate or leave a message of support for Bangers click here
Author: South Adelaide Football Club
|Tags: Panthers News Panthers Community
SANFL Ladder
2017 Fixture
Round One
South Adelaide vs TBA
Venue: TBA
Time: TBA
Round Two
South Adelaide vs TBA
Venue: TBA
Time: TBA
Round Three
South Adelaide vs TBA
Venue: TBA
Time: TBA


text:
Check in from 14h / Check out prior to 11h
Swan Lake Hotel: Find photos, reviews, information, amenities and compare prices for 4 stars hotels in Hefei, China.
Situated in Hefei, Swan Lake Hotel offers 4-star accommodation, as well as a swimming pool. It also features a coffee bar.
Hotel description
Swan Lake Hotel offers comfortable rooms, equipped to fit the requirements of any traveller.
Swan Lake Hotel Hefei provides a convenient base to discover University of Science and Technology of China, Anhui University and Hefei Golden Eagle International Shopping Center Suzhou Road, as well as everything the local area has to offer. Hefei Mingzhu Square and Wanda Plaza Ma On Shan Road are within an easy car ride from the hotel.
Hotel features
Fitness Room/Gym, Swimming pool
Availability and Prices
Booking Site
Room Type
Per room
Per night
Per night
Users who viewed Swan Lake Hotel also viewed these 4 stars Hefei hotels:
Yuan Pai International Hotel
No. 296, Fan Hua Road, Hefei
No. 296, Fan Hua Road, Hefei
Holiday Inn Downtown Hefei
No. 6 Ming Guang Road, Hefei
No. 6 Ming Guang Road, Hefei
Shushan International Hotel
No.19 Tianzhu Road, Shushan District, Hefei
No.19 Tianzhu Road, Shushan District, Hefei
Search hotels
based on


text:
Check in from 14h / Check out prior to 11h
Markgraf: Find photos, reviews, information, amenities and compare prices for 2 stars hotels in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Markgraf offers a comfortable setting when in Frankfurt am Main. It offers guests an ideal base with Nieder-Eschbach Train Station under a 10-minute stroll away.
Hotel description
Guests can wake up to breakfast served every morning at Hotel Markgraf Frankfurt am Main before venturing out to explore the area. There is also the added convenience of an in-house restaurant.
Frankfurt am Main Airport is a 35-minute drive from the hotel. Taunus is a 10-minute car ride from the hotel.
Hotel features
Availability and Prices
Booking Site
Room Type
Per room
Per night
Per night
Users who viewed Markgraf also viewed these 2 stars Frankfurt am Main hotels:
Hotel ibis Frankfurt Messe West
Breitenbachstrasse 7, Frankfurt am Main
Breitenbachstrasse 7, Frankfurt am Main
Motel One Frankfurt Airport
Colmarer Straße 2, Frankfurt am Main
Colmarer Straße 2, Frankfurt am Main
Hotel Jaguar
Theobald Christstrasse 19, Frankfurt am Main
Theobald Christstrasse 19, Frankfurt am Main
Search hotels
based on


text:
Having undesirable fat in numerous locations of your body can have a substantial effect on your health and self-esteem. While conventional weight loss through workout and diet plan is a fantastic method to slim down overall, even the best exercises can't target issue locations like the tummy, inner thighs, arms, and butts. Liposuction is a time evaluated treatment that is used to remove excess fat from particular areas of the body, enabling a specific to shape and contour their body to their preference. Is liposuction right for you? Discover now.
Pros of Liposuction
There are numerous advantages to this cosmetic treatment, including:
• Right away obvious changes. Unlike standard weight reduction, liposuction creates changes that are immediately visible in the body. Some distinction is visible right away, and the desired outcomes are usually accomplished in just a few days.
• Proven and safe. This cosmetic procedure has actually been carried out by knowledgeable surgeons all over the world for several years and the method has been improved over and once again to be safe and effective.
• Recovery time is typically fast. The downtime needed after having this type of treatment is normally much less than what is needed for other types of cosmetic procedures, consisting of tummy tucks, breast reduction, and more. People who have had the procedure can typically go back to work a lot more quickly than they anticipated and can return to living a healthy, active lifestyle.
• Weight reduction can be irreversible. With the ideal upkeep strategies, the fat that was eliminated throughout the liposuction treatment will not return.
• Complete control over your physique. With liposuction, a person can have complete control over how they want to look, beyond exactly what conventional diet and workout can offer. Offering individuals this power over their bodies increases self-esteem and help people feel their very best.
While there many advantages to liposuction, there are naturally a few cautions that need to be thought about prior to making the final decision to progress with the treatment.
Cons of Liposuction
Prior to having liposuction done, it is very important to analyze the possible downsides of the procedure and figure out if the advantages exceed the threats in your particular case. Your surgeon can assist you find out more about the dangers connected with the procedure and can help you decide if moving on is the ideal thing for you.
• Issues with basic anesthesia. Due to the fact that liposuction is carried out under general anesthesia, the treatment carries the same risks as other kind of surgical treatment where general anesthesia is used. Underlying medical conditions might enhance these risks.
• Unfavorable reactions. Bruising, bleeding, and pain are all to be anticipated, nevertheless, in uncommon cases can trigger more substantial complications.
• The prospective to get the weight back. After having actually liposuction done, it is important to preserve a healthy diet plan and exercise properly as suggested by your doctor. Failure to do so might result in acquiring back the weight that was lost or possibly a lot more.
Although there are dangers connected with liposuction, for many individuals, the benefits far exceed them. Inform yourself about the treatment by having in-depth conversations with your specialist and consider how liposuction has the potential to impact you as an unique individual. Just you and your specialist can determine if liposuction will supply you with the outcomes you are searching for within your expectations.
Laser Liposuction procedure is a new non invasive procedure to loose unwanted bodyfat in Devol OK
Laser liposuction is a more recent, minimally intrusive treatment that involves heating the fat cells to melting point and eliminating the melted fat through a little cannula. The procedure is generally done right in your doctor's workplace and is an outstanding alternative for individuals who have less than 500 ml of fat to eliminate from any one location. Laser liposuction can be a safe, complementary procedure to weight reduction in order to sculpt the body you have actually always wanted.
Contact a Cosmetic surgeon in your Devol OK today.
If you're thinking about liposuction as a weight loss solution, it is essential that you discuss your desires with a qualified cosmetic surgeon in your location. Your cosmetic surgeon will perform a complete test and health history questionnaire to determine if liposuction can benefit you and help you reach your physical and emotional objectives. Call today for an examination and learn more about how liposuction can help you attain the body of your dreams.