Examination Review Sample Clauses

Examination Review. Should any Employer required physical examination reveal the employee is unqualified to perform their assigned work, they may, at their option, have a review of their case in the following manner: a. Within ten (10) calendar days from the date of the employee's notification that they are unqualified to perform their assigned work, the employee may employ a physician of their choosing, at their own expense, for the purpose of conducting a further examination for the same purpose as the physical examination made by the Employer selected physician. A copy of the findings of the physician chosen by the employee involved shall be furnished to the Employer. In the event that such findings verify the findings of the Employer selected physician, no further medical review of the case shall be afforded. b. In the event there is a difference of opinion relative to the diagnosis between the Employer's examining physician and the physician chosen by the employee, a physician shall be mutually designated by the Employer's physician and the employee's physician. The mutually designated physician's decision relative to the diagnosis shall be final and binding as to the physical and mental fitness of the employee to perform the work of the position which the employee is employed in. Should the mutually designated physician rule in favor of the employee, the employee shall be allowed to return to work. The costs incurred for the mutually designated physician's examination shall be borne equally by the Employer and the Union.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Examination Review. Each candidate will be given the opportunity to review their written examination and concur on the grading before the posting of the Qualified List.
Sample 1Sample 2
Examination Review. To assist employees in self-improvement, the personnel department will review the results of promotional examinations with employee(s) requesting same. To maintain valid test batteries, specific test answers and the test document itself will not be discussed or distributed. This review shall be based on the general categories of the examination, and will, to the extent possible, provide the employee with an overview of his strengths and weaknesses, thereby advising him of areas where additional study or experience would be of assistance.
Sample 1Sample 2

Related to Examination Review

  • Examination and Review (i) After receipt of the Closing Working Capital Statement, Seller will have *** (***) days from the date on which Buyer has provided to Seller all access and information reasonably requested for such purposes (the “Review Period”) to review the Closing Working Capital Statement. During the Review Period, Seller and its accountants will have full access to the relevant books and records of Buyer, the personnel of, and work papers prepared by, Buyer and/or Buyer’s accountants to the extent that they relate to the Closing Working Capital Statement and to such historical financial information (to the extent in Buyer’s possession) relating to the Closing Working Capital Statement as Seller may reasonably request for the purpose of reviewing the Closing Working Capital Statement and to prepare a Statement of Objections. (ii) On or prior to the last day of the Review Period, Seller may object to the Closing Working Capital Statement by delivering to Buyer a written statement setting forth Seller’s objections in reasonable detail, indicating each disputed item or amount and the basis for Seller’s disagreement therewith (the “Statement of Objections”). If Seller fails to deliver the Statement of Objections before the expiration of the Review Period, then the Closing Working Capital Statement and the Post-Closing Adjustment, as the case may be, reflected in the Closing Working Capital Statement will be deemed to have been accepted by Seller. If Seller delivers the Statement of Objections before the expiration of the Review Period, Buyer and Seller will negotiate in good faith to resolve such objections within *** (***) days after the delivery of the Statement of Objections (the “Resolution Period”), and, if the same are so resolved within the Resolution Period, then the Post-Closing Adjustment and the Closing Working Capital Statement with such changes as may have been previously agreed in writing by Buyer and Seller, will be final and binding.

  • Examination You are responsible for promptly examining each statement upon receiving it and reporting any irregularities to us. If you fail to report any irregularities such as forged, altered, unauthorized, unsigned, or otherwise fraudulent items drawn on your account, erroneous payments or transactions, or other discrepancies reflected on your statement within 33 days of the date we sent the statement to you, we will not be responsible for your loss. We also will not be liable for any items that are forged or altered in a manner not detectable by a reasonable person, including the unauthorized use of a facsimile signature machine.

  • Examinations The Company has not received any notice that any Employee Benefit Plan is currently the subject of an audit, investigation, enforcement action or other similar proceeding conducted by any state or federal agency or authority.

  • Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Subscribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services un- der the plan. Blue Shield has completed documen- tation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required under Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review pro- cess, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.

  • Field Examination The Administrative Agent or its designee shall have conducted a field examination of the Loan Parties’ Accounts, Inventory and related working capital matters and of the Borrower’s related data processing and other systems, the results of which shall be satisfactory to the Administrative Agent in its sole discretion.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether: a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!