Covered Conduct. The conduct described in the foregoing Paragraphs 2 through 34 is hereinafter referred to as the “Covered Conduct.”
Covered Conduct. Any actual or alleged act, failure to act, negligence, statement, error, omission, breach of any duty, conduct, event, transaction, agreement, misstatement, misleading statement or other activity of any kind whatsoever from the beginning of time through the Reference Date (and any past, present, or future consequence of any such act, failure to act, negligence, statement, error, omission, breach of duty, conduct, event, transaction, agreement, misstatement, misleading statement or other activity) relating in any way to (1) compounding, counseling and documentation relating to any Product or class of Products (2) the discovery, development, manufacture, packaging, repackaging, marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling, recall, withdrawal, distribution, delivery, monitoring, reporting, supply, sale, prescribing, dispensing, physical security, warehousing, use or abuse of, or operating procedures relating to, any Product, or any system, plan, policy or advocacy relating to any Product or class of Products, including, but not limited to, any unbranded promotion, marketing, programs, or campaigns relating to any Product or class of Products; (3) the characteristics, properties, risks, or benefits of any Product; (4) the reporting, disclosure, non-reporting or nondisclosure to federal, state or other regulators of orders placed with any Released Entity; or (5) diversion control programs or suspicious order monitoring;
Covered Conduct. “Covered Conduct” as used herein is defined as:
Covered Conduct. As used herein, the term “Covered Conduct” shall mean any and all acts or omissions, including all communications, occurring up to and including the effective date of this Agreement, relating to: (a) the design, installation, presence, or failure to disclose any Defeat Device7 in
Covered Conduct. On June 10, 2009, Dr. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx filed a complaint with HHS against Parkview, Complaint Number 09-99157 (“the Complaint”), alleging that Parkview had violated the Privacy Rule. On May 16, 2011, HHS began investigating the allegations in the Complaint alleging that the Covered Entity is in violation of the Privacy Rule. HHS’s investigation indicates that the following conduct occurred (“Covered Conduct”):
1. In September 2008, Parkview received and took custody and control of medical records pertaining to approximately 5,000 to 8,000 of Xx. Xxxxxxxx’x patients, all of which contained protected health information (PHI) in non-electronic form. Parkview was assisting Xx. Xxxxxxxx to transition the patients to new providers, and was considering the possibility of purchasing some of the records from Xx. Xxxxxxxx, who was retiring and closing her practice.
2. Parkview was required by 45 C.F.R. §164.530(c) to appropriately and reasonably safeguard the PHI throughout the time the PHI was in Parkview’s possession and was maintained by Parkview until the PHI was permissibly transferred in accordance with 45 C.F.R. §164.502 or rendered unreadable, unusable or indecipherable to unauthorized persons.
3. On June 4, 2009, Parkview failed to appropriately and reasonably safeguard the PHI, when Parkview employees, with notice that Xx. Xxxxxxxx had refused delivery and was not at home, delivered and left 71 cardboard boxes of these medical records unattended and accessible to unauthorized persons on the driveway of Xx. Xxxxxxxx’x home, within 20 feet of the public road and a short distance away (four doors down) from a heavily trafficked public shopping venue.
Covered Conduct. “Covered Conduct” as used herein is defined as any conduct, representations, disclosures, or omissions, whatsoever, prior to the effective date of this Agreement, relating to or concerning statements, representations, claims, or records made or submitted in connection with CLC’s applications for and receipt of funding under the Prop 1B Program pursuant to the contract between CLC and the South Coast Air Quality Management District dated April 17, 2014 and the contract between CLC and the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District dated April 8, 2014, including any and all modifications to such contracts. “Covered Conduct” includes the claims that are the subject of the tolling agreement dated August 20, 2019, entered into between CLC and CARB.
Covered Conduct. “Covered Conduct” as used herein is defined as the creation, pooling, structuring, arranging, formation, packaging, marketing, underwriting, sale, or issuance prior to January 1, 2009 by Citigroup of the RMBS and CDOs identified in Annex 3, attached and hereby incorporated. Covered Conduct includes representations, disclosures, or non- disclosures to RMBS investors made in connection with the activities set forth above about the underlying residential mortgage loans, where the representation or non-disclosure involves information about or obtained during the process of originating, acquiring, securitizing, underwriting, or servicing residential mortgage loans included in the RMBS identified in Annex 3. Covered Conduct also includes representations, disclosures, or non-disclosures made in connection with the activities set forth above about the CDOs identified in Annex 3, attached and hereby incorporated. Covered Conduct does not include: (i) conduct relating to the origination of residential mortgages, except representations or non-disclosures to investors in the RMBS listed in Annex 3 about origination of, or about information obtained in the course of originating, such loans; (ii) origination conduct unrelated to securitization, such as soliciting, aiding or abetting borrower fraud; (iii) the servicing of residential mortgage loans, except representations or non-disclosures to investors in the RMBS listed in Annex 3 about servicing, or information obtained in the course of servicing, such loans; or (iv) representations or non- disclosures made in connection with the trading of RMBS, except to the extent that the representations or non-disclosures are in the offering materials for the underlying RMBS listed in Annex 3.
Covered Conduct. “Covered Conduct” as used herein is defined as the creation, pooling, structuring, sponsorship, arranging, formation, packaging, marketing, underwriting, sale, or issuance prior to January 1, 2009 by RBS of the RMBS identified in Annex 2, attached and hereby incorporated. Covered Conduct includes representations, disclosures, or non-disclosures to RMBS investors and ratings agencies made in connection with the activities set forth above, where the representation, disclosure, or non-disclosure involves information about or obtained during the process of originating, acquiring, securitizing, underwriting, or servicing residential 2 mortgage loans included in the RMBS identified in Annex 2. Covered Conduct does not include:
Covered Conduct. Grantee agrees that if the Company determines Grantee has engaged in Covered Conduct, the Committee may (notwithstanding any expiration of the Plan or of the rights or obligations otherwise arising under an Award) require Grantee (whether or not Grantee is then an employee, consultant, or director of the Company) to return some or all of the Proceeds from Subject Awards and/or waive, forfeit, and surrender to Company Xxxxxxx’s rights with respect to all or a portion of Xxxxxxx’s Awards which have not yet vested or become exercisable (or have not been exercised).
Covered Conduct. On January 6, 2012, HHS notified SRMC of its initiation of a compliance review of its facility to determine whether there was a failure to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Rule. HHS’s compliance review was prompted by an article in the Los Angeles Times published on January 4, 2012. The article indicated that two of SRMC’s senior leaders met with the media to discuss the medical services provided to a patient (the Affected Party) without a valid written authorization. HHS’s investigation indicated that the following conduct occurred (“Covered Conduct”):
a) From December 13 – 20, 2011, SRMC failed to safeguard the Affected Party’s PHI from any impermissible intentional or unintentional disclosure on multiple occasions as described below. This failure was evidenced by the following facts:
i) On December 13, 2011, SRMC sent a letter, through its parent company, to California Watch, responding to a story concerning Medicare fraud. The letter described the Affected Party’s medical treatment and provided specifics about her lab results. SRMC did not have a written authorization from the Affected Party to disclose this information to this news outlet.
ii) On December 16, 2011, two of SRMC’s senior leaders met with The Record Searchlight’s editor to discuss the Affected Party’s medical record in detail. SRMC did not have a written authorization from the Affected Party to disclose this information to this newspaper.
iii) On December 20, 2011, SRMC sent a letter to The Los Angeles Times, which contained detailed information about the treatment the Affected Party received. SRMC did not have a written authorization from the Affected Party to disclose this information to this newspaper.
b) SRMC impermissibly used the affected party’s PHI. This failure was evidenced by the following facts:
i) On December 20, 2011, SRMC sent an email to its entire workforce and medical staff, approximately 785-900 individuals, describing, in detail, the Affected Party’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment. SRMC did not have a written authorization from the Affected Party to share this information with SRMC’s entire workforce and medical staff.
c) SRMC has failed to sanction its workforce members pursuant to its internal sanctions policy which requires that it sanction employees for “violations of HIPAA”.
