welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Grace Kim
Grace Kim
Grace Kim
Visitors: 41
0
Bar #31096(FL)     License for 19 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Grace Kim? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

16-00161  Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States  (2018)
United States Court of International Trade Filed: Jan. 10, 2018 Citations: 2018 CIT 2
Slip Op. 18-2 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE HYUNDAI STEEL CO., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge AK STEEL CORP., ARCELORMITTAL Court No. 16-00161 USA LLC, CALIFORNIA STEEL INDUS., INC., NUCOR CORP., STEEL DYNAMICS, PUBLIC VERSION INC., and UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. Defendant-Intervenors. OPINION [Commerce’s final results in antidumping duty investigation of CORE from Korea remanded.] Dated: January 10, 2018 J. David Park, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scho..
16-00161  Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States  (2018)
United States Court of International Trade Filed: Jun. 22, 2018 Citations: 2018 CIT 77
Slip Op. 18- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE HYUNDAI STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge Defendant, ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC, STEEL Court No. 16-00161 DYNAMICS, INC., CALIFORNIA STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., AK STEEL CORPORATION, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, and NUCOR CORPORATION, Defendants-Intervenors. OPINION Dated: June , 2018 [Commerce’s remand results in an investigation of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea are aff..
13-000595PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs NEELAM TANEJA UPPAL, M.D.  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 18, 2013
Whether Respondent violated sections 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes (2007-2011), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Petitioner proved by clear & convincing evidence that Respondent violated 458.331(l) (m), (q) & (t). Recommended 6 months suspension, followed by 2 years probation, CME in record keeping & professional responsibility & ethics, $10,000. admin fine & costs.
14-000514PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs NEELAM T. UPPAL, M.D  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 31, 2014
Petitioner proved by clear & convincing evidence that Respondent violated 458.331(l) (m), (q) & (t). Recommended 6 months suspension, followed by 2 years probation, CME in record keeping & professional responsibility & ethics, $10,000. admin fine & costs.
14-000515PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs NEELAM T. UPPAL, M.D  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 31, 2014
Petitioner proved by clear & convincing evidence that Respondent violated 458.331(l) (m), (q) & (t). Recommended 6 months suspension, followed by 2 years probation, CME in record keeping & professional responsibility & ethics, $10,000. admin fine & costs.
14-000550PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs HAROLD SMITH, M.D.  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 06, 2014
10-009430PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs RICARDO JOSE SABATES, M.D.  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 04, 2010
The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of: 1) failing to practice medicine within the applicable standard of care, as required by section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by inappropriately and excessively prescribing one or more controlled substances and 2) failing to keep medical records that justify the course of treatment for prescribing one or more controlled substances, as required by section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to document patient histories, examination results, test results, results of drugs prescribed, dispensed or administered, or reports of consultations or hospitalizations, or failing to justify the amount and dosage of pills prescribed.Discipline for 9 counts of medical-records violations and 4 counts of standard-of-care violations by physician prescribing opioids for treatment of pain.
09-004678PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs MATTHEW J. KACHINAS, M.D.  (2009)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 26, 2009
The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), in DOAH Case No. 09-4678PL; Subsections 456.072(1)(l), 458.331(1)(m), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in DOAH Case No. 09-4679PL; and Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), in DOAH Case No. 09-4680PL, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Respondent committed gross malpractice when he failed to identify the twin with anomalies in a selected feticide and performed the procedure on the normal twin.
09-004679PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs MATTHEW J. KACHINAS, M.D.  (2009)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 26, 2009
The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), in DOAH Case No. 09-4678PL; Subsections 456.072(1)(l), 458.331(1)(m), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in DOAH Case No. 09-4679PL; and Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), in DOAH Case No. 09-4680PL, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Respondent committed gross malpractice when he failed to identify the twin with anomalies in a selected feticide and performed the procedure on the normal twin.
09-004680PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs MATTHEW J. KACHINAS, M.D.  (2009)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 26, 2009
The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), in DOAH Case No. 09-4678PL; Subsections 456.072(1)(l), 458.331(1)(m), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in DOAH Case No. 09-4679PL; and Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), in DOAH Case No. 09-4680PL, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Respondent committed gross malpractice when he failed to identify the twin with anomalies in a selected feticide and performed the procedure on the normal twin.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer