CONCLUSION OF LAW. On the effective date of this Agreement As of December 18, 2017, PWB no longer has a variance from the Cryptosporidium treatment requirements and therefore PWB is not in compliance with OAR 333-061-0032(3)(e) through (g).
CONCLUSION OF LAW. As described in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6, Aetna violated Bureau Rule 750 (9) and (10) from October 26, 1998 through at least March 31, 2000 by failing to pay commissions to producers for their sales of Aetna individual HMO plans.
CONCLUSION OF LAW. Respondent’s discharge of oil into navigable water of the U.S. in a quantity that has been determined may be harmful under 40 C.F.R § 110.3 is a violation of Section 311(b)(3) of the CWA.
CONCLUSION OF LAW. The consummation of the Agreement is necessary and appropriate to reform and revitalize London Pacific within the meaning of N. C. Gen. Stat. ss.58-30-85(c), and therefore should be approved by the Court.
CONCLUSION OF LAW. As described in paragraphs 5 through 19, Aetna violated 24-A M.R.S.A. § 220(2) by failing to substantively respond to the Superintendent’s inquiries made to Aetna in Bureau complaint files 0000000000, 2000508189, 2000509329 and 2000509456, and in three of the files by initially not responding at all within 14 days of its receipt of such inquiries.
CONCLUSION OF LAW. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx violated 24-A MRSA §1539 (1) (D), [replaced by §1417 (1) (D)] by failing to remit money belonging to policyholders or insurers. As discussed at paragraph’s # 17 through 22, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx did not remit monies belonging to Allstate for policies issued to Xx. Xxxxx, Xx. Xxxxxxxxx and Xx. Xxxx; and failed to remit a premium refund to Xx. Xxxxx.
CONCLUSION OF LAW. As described in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6, CIGNA violated Bureau Rule 750(9) and (10) from October 26, 1998 through January 31, 2000 by failing to pay commissions to producers for their sales of CIGNA individual HMO plans.
CONCLUSION OF LAW. The department has authority under Section 31.185 (1), Wis. Stats. to grant a permit to transfer ownership of a dam.
CONCLUSION OF LAW. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, which are made a part of the judgment herein, the court concludes as a matter of law that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover, the amount of recovery to be determined in accordance with Rule 38(c).
CONCLUSION OF LAW. Upon consideration of the record as a whole, the State Board of Pharmacy concludes that paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Findings of Fact constitute being guilty of willfully violating, conspiring to violate, attempting to violate, or aiding and abetting the violation of provisions of Section 3715.52 and Chapter 2925. of the Revised Code as provided in Division (A)(5) of Section 4729.16 of the Ohio Revised Code.
