42 U.S.C. § 210

REPORT ON CHANGES TO FEE SCHEDULE OR FEE PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

“Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act [June 30, 2004], the Director shall submit a report on any changes or modifications made to the fee schedule or fee payment arrangements between the Federal Emergency Management Agency and insurance adjusters who provide services with respect to flood insurance policies to—“(1) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate; and“(2) the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1978–2014 · leading case: Dr. Louis Levy v. Dr. Karl F. Urbach, Steven Davis v. John C. Droke, 651 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dr. Louis Levy v. Dr. Karl F. Urbach, Steven Davis v. John C. Droke, 651 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “With regard to the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 210 (e), the court noted that the plaintiffs did not challenge the validity of its implementing regulation, 42 C.”

Limbaugh v. State, 887 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). · cites it 2× “(2003); Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [HIPPA], 42 U.S.C.A. § 210 et seq. (1996); 10 U.S.”

Michael J. Salazar v. Margaret M. Heckler, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 787 F.2d 527 (10th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 210 (b) (1982). 5. The grades, ranks and titles of commissioned PHS officers are organized in a manner directly corresponding to those in the Army.”

Peter H. Forsham v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Sec'y of the Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 587 F.2d 1128 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “” It regarded the degree of scrutiny as irrelevant to the court’s consideration, stating that the fact that the government “may be greatly influenced by the IRG’s expert view does not make the IRG an agency.”

Soeken v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 430 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “Generally, jurisdiction over claims for back pay and correction of records is based on a complainant’s statutory entitlement to compensation. Like members of the uniformed services, officers of the regular Commissioned Corps are entitled to pay and allowances while on duty.”

Brooks v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 135 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “§ 101 (3)); 42 U.S.C. § 210 (a)(1). Also, they are entitled to a number of bene *137 fits available to members of the Armed Services.”

Levy v. Urbach, 447 F. Supp. 712 (N.D. Cal. 1978). · cites it 4× “13 In its present form, 14 42 U.S.C. § 210 , the statute reads in pertinent part: “(e) Whenever any noncommissioned officer or other employee of the Service is assigned for duty which the Surgeon General finds requires intimate contact with persons afflicted with leprosy, he may…”

Verbeck v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 420 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “The denial of process mandated by statute and regulations, without more, is insufficient to estop the application of 42 U.S.C. § 210 -l(a). Therefore, Ms. Verbeek may recover damages only for four days of unpaid annual leave, as the Board determined.”

Brooks v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 141 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “§§ 101 (3), 204(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 210 (a)(1). They are also entitled to a number of benefits available to Army officers, see 42 U.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.