Expert opinion Sample Clauses

Expert opinion. (a) The Dispute Resolution Board consists of three members unless the Parties agree that the Dispute Resolution Board shall consist of one member. (b) If the Dispute Resolution Board consists of three members, then each Party must appoint one member to the Dispute Resolution Board within 15 Working Days after the deadline referred to in Article 21.1 (b). These appointed members of the Dispute Resolution Board must jointly appoint a third member of the Dispute Resolution Board, who shall act as the chairman of the Dispute Resolution Board, within 10 Working Days after they have both been appointed. (c) If the Dispute Resolution Board consists of one member, then the Parties must jointly appoint the expert within 15 Working Days after the deadline referred to in Article 21.1 (b). (d) If an expert has not been appointed within the period specified in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c), then the expert is appointed by the President of The Hague District Court upon request of one of the Parties. Articles 1025 to 1035 inclusive of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the opinion, appointment and functioning of the Dispute Resolution Board. (e) The conditions for appointing members of the Dispute Resolution Board are established by the Parties in consultation with the prospective members of the Dispute Resolution Board. (f) The costs of the Dispute Resolution Board and the costs for legal assistance are borne by the unsuccessful Party unless the Dispute Resolution Board determines otherwise. (g) Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the procedure shall be as follows: (i) The Party taking the initiative sends, within four weeks of the appointment of the Dispute Resolution Board, the members of the Dispute Resolution Board a request for a binding opinion, and also sends a copy to the other Party. The request shall comprise at least a description of the dispute, the point of view of the respective Party, and the relevant documents; (ii) the other Party must respond in writing to the request within 4 weeks; (iii) the Parties, depending on the needs of the Dispute Resolution Board, have the opportunity to further explain their positions to the Dispute Resolution Board in writing or subsequently verbally, with or without supporting documents. The Dispute Resolution Board shall in any case ensure the diligent process of the Expert Opinion; and (iv) the Dispute Resolution Board must issue its opinion to the Parties within 4 weeks of the last permitted procedural step ...

Expert opinion. There is established evidence that high levels of HDL-C in nature are associated with a lower risk of CAD. Unlike LDL-C, the mechanisms controlling HDL-C are more complex. Lifestyle interventions are safe but only modestly increase HDL-C. The best treatments available currently seem the niacin derivatives, although the newer CETP inhibitors, reconstituted HDL infusion and apolipoprotein A-1 Milano infusion hold much promise. The next 5 years should provide information on whether improving vascular protective function of HDL is more important than HDL-C levels and also whether we should target raising specific HDL subclasses rather than HDL-C itself. • Treatment of dyslipidemia in diabetic patients remains a very challenging issue in CAD prevention, there is an increased interest in treatments that has a dual favorable effect on both glycemic control and lipid control, most important in this issue is the up-growing role of glitazars, especially aleglitazar, which is foreseen to be the upcoming treatment for lipid regulation in diabetic patients. • Nowadays, with a better understanding of the immunological and inflammatory mecha- nisms underlying atherosclerosis, treatments that stabilize vulnerable plaques and halts atherosclerosis progression are gaining wide interest and will show promising results within the next few years. Lp-PLA2 is an emerging biomarker of CV risk that is phar- macologically modifiable through specific Lp-PLA2 inhibitors, as darapladib. Moreover, Aliskiren, a direct renin inhibitor is gaining wide interest in terms of plaque stabilization and regression in established atherosclerosis. • Combination therapy can provide marked lipoprotein changes in patients at risk for atherosclerotic events. Three large clinical trials, involving more than 45,000 patients in aggregate, are currently testing the effect on major clinical endpoints of adding niacin or ezetimibe to statin treatment in patients at high risk156, 157, 296. Results of these trials are expected in 2012–2013. Nevertheless, a recent systematic review of 102 studies found no benefit of combination therapy over high-dose statin monotherapy in terms of mortality, MI, stroke, and revascularization procedures in patients requiring intensive lipid-lowering therapy297. An effective strategy in patients requiring intensive lipid-lowering therapy is critically needed and still controversial, and is a field for further research. • Novel anti-anginal treatments, as ivabradine, fasudil and ...

Expert opinion. In accordance with the Expert Opinion Report prepared by KPMG Yönetim Danışmanlığı A.Ş. dated 19.03.2021, ➢ The reasonable share value of Volkswagen Doğuş Finansman A.Şis calculated as TL 280,694,402.23, and the reasonable share value of VDF Servis is calculated as TL 1,048,484,725.85. ➢ The de-merger rate is 88.40%, and the exhangerate is 0.000759. ➢ As a result of the de-merger process in this direction, the capital increase of VDF Servis will be TL 669,018.06, thus the capital of VDF Servis will be TL 5,769,018.06, with the said capital increase, Doğuş Otomotiv's capital in VDF Servis is TL 655,364.62 TL and Doğuş Holding will become the owner of a new share of TL 13,653.44, ➢ It has been determined that the de-merger and exchange rates calculated by considering the fair share values for the Spin-off Companies and the Transferee Company are fair, reasonable and reliable.

Expert opinion. Please be advised that ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ and/or other forensic psychiatrists and/or psychologists working for the Company will render an opinion based upon evidence, science, logic and clinical judgment. Thus, after evaluation of all the facts, it may be that the opinion offered is unfavorable to one or more claims or defenses that you and your client espouse.

Expert opinion. 1. If the procedure at company level has been followed but has not led to a solution, a written request to call in an expert may be submitted by or on behalf of the complainant(s) to the secretary of the RAS. 2. The cost of making such a request is €35. If the complaint is upheld, this amount will be refunded. 3. The request shall be submitted in writing by or on behalf of the complainant(s) to the secretary of the RAS. It shall in all cases include the name and address details of the complainant(s), a description of the workload complaint, address details of the property concerned, copy of the correspondence conducted with the employer in relation to the complaint. 4. The secretary assesses whether the request meets the conditions. If necessary and possible, the submitting party will be given the opportunity to rectify any errors within 14 days. 5. The secretary shall acknowledge receipt of the request and designate one of the experts - appointed by parties to the CLA for this purpose - to investigate and issue an opinion on the complaint received. 6. The expert is authorised to assess the work situation to which the complaint relates on-site. 7. The expert records his findings in a report and sends it to the employer for reaction within 14 days of the completion of the investigation. 8. The employer shall submit its response in writing to the expert within 14 days of sending the report. 9. If necessary, the expert requests additional information from the employer or complainant(s). 10. Once the expert has sufficient information, he will record his opinion in a written opinion and send it to the employer and the complainant(s). 11. Following the advice, another attempt will be made by or on behalf of the employer to reach a solution. 12. If the advice does not lead to a solution within one month of being sent, the dispute may be submitted to the Workload Complaints Committee either by or on behalf of the complainant(s) or by or on behalf of the employer.

Expert opinion. If there is a difference of opinion on reintegration, an expert opinion can be requested from the UWV. Both the employer and the employee can request an expert opinion. For example, because the employee does not agree with the work offered. Or because the employer wants to know whether the employee has done enough to reintegrate. The UWV makes an independent ruling. Charges are made for this (currently €100).

Expert opinion. ‌ If, due to disagreement between the Parties or in order to preserve the evidence, an expert opinion is required, the procedure thereof shall comply with the rules of procedure for appointing experts laid down by the Building and Construction Arbitration Board.

Expert opinion. If you do not agree with the company doctor's recommendation, you can ask UWV for an expert opinion. The following rules apply: Under the Financial Supervision Act (Wft), you are required to swear the Bankers' Oath. In this context, disciplinary law applies. When you take this oath, you swear or promise that you will perform your work ethically and with due care. The bank will ensure that the Banker's Oath remains relevant and promotes awareness of desired behaviour, which puts clients' interests first, and will continue to do so after you have taken the Banker's Oath.

Expert opinion. With the introduction of sugammadex, a new way of neuromuscular reversal became available that differs radically from reversal with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. By encapsulating aminosteroidal neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBD), sugammadex is able to reverse any depth of neuromuscular block in a short period of time. In vitro indications that sugammadex is able to bind to other (i.e. non-NMBD) steroidal agents are probably not relevant in vivo. Additionally, the effects of sugammadex on the QT-interval or clotting time do not appear to be of clinical significance. However, there are tenacious concerns with the use of sugammadex, of which the most important are the recently reported high incidence of hypersensitivity reactions50,70,71, and adverse cardio-vascular events such as bradycardia and haemodynamic collapse95,96. Although the presentation of these conditions sometimes overlap, the involved mechanisms remain unknown. Post-marketing data of sugammadex associated adverse events are however reassuring. In the Netherlands, 13 cases of a severe adverse event have been reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb between 2011 and November 2017. This included one case with bradycardia and 5 cases with anaphylaxis97. Data on mortality are not available. The 2015 FDA briefing document of sugammadex reports 273 cases of anaphylaxis among 11.5 million sugammadex exposures of which 4 were fatal98. In addition, fatal outcome related to cardiac arrhythmias was reported in 3 cases and related to other causes in administered high-risk agents99. Finally, a recent Cochrane meta-analysis reported an equal risk for serious adverse events for both sugammadex and neostigmine (<1%), but a superior overall risk-benefit profile for sugammadex90. We contend that sugammadex is safe to use, and that only on rare occasions it may induce life- threatening reactions. It is our opinion that sugammadex offers advantages in the perioperative setting that outweigh the previous stated concerns, especially when compared to its alternative neostigmine. Sugammadex significantly reduces the incidence of residual neuromuscular block100, provided that objective neuromuscular monitoring is applied and sugammadex is properly dosed38-40. This is pivotal, as incidences of RNMB and the associated pulmonary complications are traditionally substantial and have not shown any improvement over the past decades101. Neostigmine has clearly failed to make a significant difference in th...