Monday, February 7, 2011

N8222J arrived at KNYL from KWHP

Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
http://ad.trwv.net/t.pl/54991/261038
http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426
http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/
http://ptusss.blogspot.com/
ptusss@aol.com
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=guyperea@gmail.com&lc=US&item_name=President of The United States&item_number=14112769481&currency_code=USD&bn=PP-DonationsBF:btn_donateCC_LG.gif:NonHosted
United States Secret Service Director Patty Martinez President Pro Tempro
5 USCS section 5301 (c) "The President's Pay Agent" New in Caution to 'settlement of payment cards" ~ VOUCHERS ~ electronic 26 USCS section 6050W returns 12/31/2010; Travel and Subsistence Expenses; mileage allowance 5 USCS section 5701 without pay or $1.00 a year authorize employment. Confidentality Notice: This E-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the E-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail transmission in Error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements can be made for proper delivery, and then delete the message from your system. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Notice of Removal of office of Defendant Article IV General Provisions Section 2 (Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States. "Any Thing in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding" Contrary to Law (of an Act or Omission) Illegal; In Notwithstanding "Dispite;in spite of The government is current Executive Branch violating Notice of Removal, The Notice of Removal on the Obama Administration in personam including Goods (including tea, i.e. Leslie in like); within 30 days after the defendant Barak Obama is served with process in suit (case 641210) 28 USCS section 1446; Murphy Bros., Inc Vs. Michetti Pipe Stringing Inc., 119 S.Ct 1322 (1999). In responce to Housekeeper statment of Court Process of Subject Matter California Inn in Notice of Removal. Create a new office Federal Districts Modesto City Schools Districts and Turlock Irrigation District Division 3; United States Department of Education, Director Ross Carkeet United States Department of Education, Federal Bureau of Investigation Youth Authorty Director Guy Perea, Jr., Federal Bureau of Investigation Youth Authority Director Shopie Perea, and Director United States District Court Western Washington Clean Water United States Navy.

> From: alerts@flightaware.com
> To: guyperea@live.com
> Subject: N8222J arrived at KNYL from KWHP
> Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:00:03 -0600
>
> N8222J arrived at KNYL (Yuma Mcas/Yuma Intl) at 11:54AM MST from KWHP (Whiteman)
>
> For more information visit http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N8222J
>
> FlightAware Flight Plan (http://flightaware.com/flightplan/) -- Save time & money with FlightAware's free flight planner.
>
> To edit or disable these alerts please visit http://flightaware.com/account/manage/alerts/

N8222J has departed KWHP for KNYL

Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
http://ad.trwv.net/t.pl/54991/261038
http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426
http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/
http://ptusss.blogspot.com/
ptusss@aol.com
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=guyperea@gmail.com&lc=US&item_name=President of The United States&item_number=14112769481&currency_code=USD&bn=PP-DonationsBF:btn_donateCC_LG.gif:NonHosted
United States Secret Service Director Patty Martinez President Pro Tempro
5 USCS section 5301 (c) "The President's Pay Agent" New in Caution to 'settlement of payment cards" ~ VOUCHERS ~ electronic 26 USCS section 6050W returns 12/31/2010; Travel and Subsistence Expenses; mileage allowance 5 USCS section 5701 without pay or $1.00 a year authorize employment. Confidentality Notice: This E-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the E-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail transmission in Error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements can be made for proper delivery, and then delete the message from your system. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Notice of Removal of office of Defendant Article IV General Provisions Section 2 (Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States. "Any Thing in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding" Contrary to Law (of an Act or Omission) Illegal; In Notwithstanding "Dispite;in spite of The government is current Executive Branch violating Notice of Removal, The Notice of Removal on the Obama Administration in personam including Goods (including tea, i.e. Leslie in like); within 30 days after the defendant Barak Obama is served with process in suit (case 641210) 28 USCS section 1446; Murphy Bros., Inc Vs. Michetti Pipe Stringing Inc., 119 S.Ct 1322 (1999). In responce to Housekeeper statment of Court Process of Subject Matter California Inn in Notice of Removal. Create a new office Federal Districts Modesto City Schools Districts and Turlock Irrigation District Division 3; United States Department of Education, Director Ross Carkeet United States Department of Education, Federal Bureau of Investigation Youth Authorty Director Guy Perea, Jr., Federal Bureau of Investigation Youth Authority Director Shopie Perea, and Director United States District Court Western Washington Clean Water United States Navy.

> From: alerts@flightaware.com
> To: guyperea@live.com
> Subject: N8222J has departed KWHP for KNYL
> Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:16:39 -0600
>
> N8222J/P28A departed KWHP (Whiteman) at 09:02AM PST enroute to KNYL (Yuma Mcas/Yuma Intl) for an estimated arrival at 11:53AM MST
>
> For more information visit http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N8222J
>
> FlightAware Flight Plan (http://flightaware.com/flightplan/) -- Save time & money with FlightAware's free flight planner.
>
> To edit or disable these alerts please visit http://flightaware.com/account/manage/alerts/

NIH Research Matters for February 7, 2011--genes linked to Parkinson's risk, how UV light triggers melanoma and orangutan genome sequenced

Subject: NIH Research Matters for February 7, 2011--genes linked to Parkinson's risk, how UV light triggers melanoma and orangutan genome sequenced
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:49:56 -0600
To: guyperea@live.com
From: nih.ocpl@service.govdelivery.com

The February 7, 2011, NIH Research Matters is now available. In this week's edition:

Study Reveals Parkinson's Disease Risk Genes In the largest genome-wide association study of the disease to date, scientists discovered that genetics play a substantial role in Parkinson's disease. The finding may one day lead to better diagnostics and therapies.
More...

How UV Radiation Triggers Melanoma A protein that immune cells use to communicate with each other is involved in the development of melanoma, a new study shows. The findings suggest a new potential target for treating this aggressive skin cancer.
More...

Orangutan Genome Sequenced
Researchers have decoded the orangutan genome, revealing intriguing clues about the evolution of primates, including humans.
More...

Editor's Picks from past issues:

NIH Research Matters is on Facebook! Join us at http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=bWFpbGluZ2lkPTEyMDcyNDQmbWVzc2FnZWlkPVBSRC1CVUwtMTIwNzI0NCZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTEyNzY1Njc4NzImZW1haWxpZD1ndXlwZXJlYUBsaXZlLmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9Z3V5cGVyZWFAbGl2ZS5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&112&&&http://www.facebook.com/ResearchMatters, and write on our wall.
NIH Research Matters is also available as an RSS News Feed. Point your RSS reader to http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=bWFpbGluZ2lkPTEyMDcyNDQmbWVzc2FnZWlkPVBSRC1CVUwtMTIwNzI0NCZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTEyNzY1Njc4NzImZW1haWxpZD1ndXlwZXJlYUBsaXZlLmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9Z3V5cGVyZWFAbGl2ZS5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&114&&&http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/feed.xml (to learn more about RSS, visit http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=bWFpbGluZ2lkPTEyMDcyNDQmbWVzc2FnZWlkPVBSRC1CVUwtMTIwNzI0NCZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTEyNzY1Njc4NzImZW1haWxpZD1ndXlwZXJlYUBsaXZlLmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9Z3V5cGVyZWFAbGl2ZS5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&115&&&http://www.nih.gov/news/rss.htm).

Update Your E-mail Address | Add Subscriptions | Unsubscribe
If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com. For all other inquiries about NIH programs and activities, please contact NIHinfo@od.nih.gov. Before writing, please view our Frequently Asked Questions page, our A-Z Health Topics page, or Search our website.
This service is provided to you by the National Institutes of Health — Turning Discovery Into Health.
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health is a trademark of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of National Institutes of Health (NIH) · 9000 Rockville Pike · Bethesda MD 20892 · 301-496-4000 / TTY 301-402-9612

FDA MedWatch - Hydrocodone Bitartrate And Acetaminophen Tablets, Phenobarbital Tablets by Qualitest: Recall - Incorrect Package Labeling

Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
http://ad.trwv.net/t.pl/54991/261038
http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426
http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com
http://ptusss.blogspot.com
ptusss@aol.com
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=guyperea%40gmail%2ecom&lc=US&item_name=President%20of%20The%20United%20States&item_number=14112769481&currency_code=USD&bn=PP%2dDonationsBF%3abtn_donateCC_LG%2egif%3aNonHosted
United States Secret Service Director Patty Martinez President Pro Tempro
5 USCS section 5301 (c) "The President's Pay Agent" New in Caution to 'settlement of payment cards" ~ VOUCHERS ~ electronic 26 USCS section 6050W returns 12/31/2010; Travel and Subsistence Expenses; mileage allowance 5 USCS section 5701 without pay or $1.00 a year authorize employment. Confidentality Notice: This E-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the E-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail transmission in Error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements can be made for proper delivery, and then delete the message from your system. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Notice of Removal of office of Defendant Article IV General Provisions Section 2 (Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States. "Any Thing in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding" Contrary to Law (of an Act or Omission) Illegal; In Notwithstanding "Dispite;in spite of The government is current Executive Branch violating Notice of Removal, The Notice of Removal on the Obama Administration in personam including Goods (including tea, i.e. Leslie in like); within 30 days after the defendant Barak Obama is served with process in suit (case 641210) 28 USCS section 1446; Murphy Bros., Inc Vs. Michetti Pipe Stringing Inc., 119 S.Ct 1322 (1999). In responce to Housekeeper statment of Court Process of Subject Matter California Inn in Notice of Removal. Create a new office Federal Districts Modesto City Schools Districts and Turlock Irrigation District Division 3; United States Department of Education, Director Ross Carkeet United States Department of Education, Federal Bureau of Investigation Youth Authorty Director Guy Perea, Jr., Federal Bureau of Investigation Youth Authority Director Shopie Perea, and Director United States District Court Western Washington Clean Water United States Navy.

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:00:54 -0600
From: fda@service.govdelivery.com
Subject: FDA MedWatch - Hydrocodone Bitartrate And Acetaminophen Tablets, Phenobarbital Tablets by Qualitest: Recall - Incorrect Package Labeling
To: guyperea@live.com

Hydrocodone Bitartrate And Acetaminophen Tablets, Phenobarbital Tablets by Qualitest: Recall - Incorrect Package Labeling

AUDIENCE: Pharmacy, Patient
ISSUE: An individual bottle of Hydrocodone Bitartrate and Acetaminophen Tablets, USP 10mg / 500mg, NDC 0603-3888-20, 60 count was found incorrectly labeled with a Phenobarbital Tablets, USP 32.4 mg, NDC 0603-5166-32, 1000 count label, printed with Lot Number T150G10B. Both products are manufactured by Qualitest Pharmaceuticals.
As a result of this mix-up, patients may unintentionally take Hydrocodone and acetaminophen tablets, instead of the intended dose of Phenobarbital. Unintentional administration of Hydrocodone can lead to serious adverse events including respiratory depression, CNS depression, coma and death, especially in opioid naïve patients and patients on other CNS depressants. Unintentional administration of acetaminophen may result in liver toxicity in patients on other acetaminophen containing medications, patients with liver dysfunction, or people who consume more than 3 alcoholic beverages a day. Additionally, missing doses of Phenobarbital could result in loss of seizure control.
BACKGROUND: The recall includes the following products:

Hydrocodone Bitartrate and Acetaminophen Tablets, USP 10mg / 500mg, NDC 0603-3888-20, 60 count, Lot Numbers T150G10B, T120J10E and T023M10A
Phenobarbital Tablets, USP 32.4 mg, NDC 0603-5166-32, 1000 count, Lot Numbers T150G10B, T120J10E and T023M10A

Recalled lots were distributed between Sept. 21, 2010 and Dec. 29, 2010 to wholesale and retail pharmacies nationwide (including Puerto Rico).
RECOMMENDATION: Consumers who have affected product should stop using the product and contact Qualitest at 1-800-444-4011 for reimbursement. Lot numbers can be found on the side of the bottle.

Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of these products to the FDA's MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program:

Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm
Download form or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

Read the MedWatch safety alert, including a link to the company press release, at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm242527.htm

Tell us how we are doing:
http://survey.foreseeresults.com/survey/display?cid=d509U9xg0gZVxkMRcoMsQg==&sid=link&cpp[date]=02_07_2011_1355&cpp[type]=S

You are encouraged to report all serious adverse events and product quality problems to FDA MedWatch at www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Follow MedWatch on Twitter

Update your subscriptions, modify your e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com.
This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) · 10903 New Hampshire Ave · Silver Spring, MD 20993 · 800-439-1420

NGC Update Service: February 7, 2011

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:00:14 -0600
From: updates@subscriptions.ahrq.gov
Subject: NGC Update Service: February 7, 2011
To: guyperea@live.com

National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC)

February 07, 2011

New This Week

Guideline Synthesis

Assessment and Management of Obesity and Overweight in Adults Update: includes recommendations from NICE and VA/DoD

Guideline Summaries

American College of Radiology

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® acute shoulder pain. This updates a previously published guideline summary.
ACR Appropriateness Criteria® chronic neck pain. This updates a previously published guideline summary.
ACR Appropriateness Criteria® treatment of urinary tract obstruction.
ACR Appropriateness Criteria® treatment of uterine leiomyomas.
ACR Appropriateness Criteria® upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This updates a previously published guideline summary.

Program in Evidence-based Care

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network

Management of chronic venous leg ulcers. A national clinical guideline. This updates a previously published guideline summary.

Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada

Announcements

Newly Submitted

CDC has updated their recommended adult immunization schedule.
IDSA has published new guidelines for the treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children.

Health Awareness Topics - February 2011

AMD/Low Vision Awareness Month (see related guidelines)
American Heart Month (see related guidelines)
National Children's Dental Health Month (see related guidelines)

Quality Measures

Use NGC's Related NQMC Measures Browse to find guidelines with associated measures available from the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse.

Conference News

The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) Conference 2011, will be held August 28-31, 2011 in Seoul, Korea. Submit abstracts until February 14, 2011.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory

February 4, 2011: Avandia (rosiglitazone): FDA notified healthcare professionals and patients that information on the cardiovascular risks (including heart attack) of rosiglitazone has been added to the physician labeling and patient Medication Guide.

NGC's Sister Resources

Find Innovations and QualityTools classified by disease or clinical category, patient population, stage of care, setting of care, and more in AHRQ's Health Care Innovations Exchange Web site.
Look for Quality Measures in AHRQ's National Quality Measures Clearinghouse (NQMC).

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or E-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page
If you have any questions or problems with the subscription service, E-mail: updates@subscriptions.ahrq.gov. For other inquiries, Contact Us.
If you have questions about AHRQ's activities, please try to find the answers by checking our Home Page, where we have established links to various topical areas. Also check the News & Information section and Frequently Asked Questions. You may also Search or Browse the Web Site. These features are designed to assist you in obtaining the information you are seeking.
This service is provided to you at no charge by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) · 540 Gaither Road · Rockville MD 20850 · 301-427-1364

February NIH News in Health--acupuncture, stuttering, healthy family meals and more

Subject: February NIH News in Health--acupuncture, stuttering, healthy family meals and more
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 10:03:09 -0600
To: guyperea@live.com
From: nih.ocpl@service.govdelivery.com

The February issue of NIH News in Health, the monthly newsletter bringing you practical health news and tips based on the latest NIH research, is now available! In this edition:

Cartoon of a man with back pain thinking about getting acupuncture

Understanding AcupunctureTime To Try It?Scientists have found that acupuncture can help with certain conditions, such as back pain, knee pain, headaches and osteoarthritis. But how it works is something of a mystery.
Read more about acupuncture.

When Words Get StuckAn Update on Stuttering
Stuttering affects more than 3 million people in America and another 60 million worldwide. Scientists are working to uncover the genes and other factors that lead to this speech disorder.
Read more about stuttering.

Health Capsules:

Click here to download a PDF version for printing.
Visit our Facebook wall to suggest topics you'd like us to cover, or start a discussion about how you use the newsletter. We want to hear what you think!
Please pass the word on to your colleagues about NIH News in Health. We are happy to send a limited number of print copies free of charge for display in offices, libraries or clinics. Just email us or call 301-435-7489 for more information.
If you're an editor who wishes to reprint our stories, please see http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=bWFpbGluZ2lkPTEyMDY1NTQmbWVzc2FnZWlkPVBSRC1CVUwtMTIwNjU1NCZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTEyNzY1Njc1MTAmZW1haWxpZD1ndXlwZXJlYUBsaXZlLmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9Z3V5cGVyZWFAbGl2ZS5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&115&&&http://newsinhealth.nih.gov/about.htm for information.

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of National Institutes of Health (NIH) · 9000 Rockville Pike · Bethesda MD 20892 · 301-496-4000 / TTY 301-402-9612

Shaping Beauty, Inc. Recalls Weight Loss Pills Found to Contain an Undeclared Drug Ingredient

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 10:07:06 -0600
From: fda@service.govdelivery.com
Subject: Shaping Beauty, Inc. Recalls Weight Loss Pills Found to Contain an Undeclared Drug Ingredient
To: guyperea@live.com

Shaping Beauty, Inc. Issues a Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Weight Loss Pills Found to Contain an Undeclared Drug Ingredient
Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:36:00 -0600

Shaping Beauty, Inc. has been informed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that a weight loss dietary supplement sold and marketed by the firm contain an undeclared drug ingredient. FDA lab analyses of dietary supplements distributed by the company were found to contain undeclared Sibutramine used as an appetite suppressant for weight loss.

Subscriber Services:
Manage Preferences | Unsubscribe | Help with this service

Stay Connected:

U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) · 10903 New Hampshire Ave · Silver Spring, MD 20993 · 800-439-1420

United States Department of Labor OALJ - Administrative Review Board Decisions Update

Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
http://ad.trwv.net/t.pl/54991/261038
http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426
http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com
http://ptusss.blogspot.com
ptusss@aol.com
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=guyperea%40gmail%2ecom&lc=US&item_name=President%20of%20The%20United%20States&item_number=14112769481&currency_code=USD&bn=PP%2dDonationsBF%3abtn_donateCC_LG%2egif%3aNonHosted
United States Secret Service Director Patty Martinez President Pro Tempro
5 USCS section 5301 (c) "The President's Pay Agent" New in Caution to 'settlement of payment cards" ~ VOUCHERS ~ electronic 26 USCS section 6050W returns 12/31/2010; Travel and Subsistence Expenses; mileage allowance 5 USCS section 5701 without pay or $1.00 a year authorize employment. Confidentality Notice: This E-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the E-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail transmission in Error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements can be made for proper delivery, and then delete the message from your system. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Notice of Removal of office of Defendant Article IV General Provisions Section 2 (Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States. "Any Thing in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding" Contrary to Law (of an Act or Omission) Illegal; In Notwithstanding "Dispite;in spite of The government is current Executive Branch violating Notice of Removal, The Notice of Removal on the Obama Administration in personam including Goods (including tea, i.e. Leslie in like); within 30 days after the defendant Barak Obama is served with process in suit (case 641210) 28 USCS section 1446; Murphy Bros., Inc Vs. Michetti Pipe Stringing Inc., 119 S.Ct 1322 (1999). In responce to Housekeeper statment of Court Process of Subject Matter California Inn in Notice of Removal. Create a new office Federal Districts Modesto City Schools Districts and Turlock Irrigation District Division 3; United States Department of Education, Director Ross Carkeet United States Department of Education, Federal Bureau of Investigation Youth Authorty Director Guy Perea, Jr., Federal Bureau of Investigation Youth Authority Director Shopie Perea, and Director United States District Court Western Washington Clean Water United States Navy.

Subject: United States Department of Labor OALJ - Administrative Review Board Decisions Update
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:39:38 -0600
To: guyperea@live.com
From: subscriptions@subscriptions.dol.gov

USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Decisions of the Administrative Review Board
January 2011

Anderson v. Schering Corp., ARB No. 10-070, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-7 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011)
Final Decision and Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint With Prejudice PDF | HTM
Summary:
SETTLEMENT; ARB TREATS SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE AS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
In Anderson v. Schering Corp., ARB No. 10-070, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-7 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011), after receiving a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, the ARB issued an order directing the Complainant to state which of the grounds for terminating a case prior to final adjudication was applicable: withdrawal of objections to the findings or order; an adjudicatory settlement; or the bringing of an action in federal district court. The ARB directed that if a settlement was involved, a copy of the settlement agreement be submitted for the ARB's review.
The Respondent thereafter submitted a copy of a separation agreement and general release executed by the Complainant. The ARB treated the agreement and release as a settlement. The ARB determined that the agreement was a fair, adequate and reasonable resolution of the matter, approved the agreement, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. Integrated Informatics, Inc., ARB No. 08-127, ALJ No. 2007-LCA-26 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011)
Final Decision and Order of Remand PDF | HTM
Summary:
TIMELINESS OF ADMINISTRATOR'S INITIAL DETERMINATION ON INVESTIGATION OF H-1B COMPLAINT; FAILURE TO MEET REGULATORY DEADLINE IS NOT GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
In Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. Integrated Informatics, Inc., ARB No. 08-127, ALJ No. 2007-LCA-26 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011), the Respondent contended that the Complainant's complaint under the H-1B regulations should be dismissed because the Wage and Hour Administrator failed to timely issue the initial decision. The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.806(a)(3) required a determination within 30 calendar days of the filing of the complaint. The Administrator's decision in this case, however, was issued more than a year following the filing of the complaint. The ALJ denied the motion based on the ARB's ruling in Administrator, WHD v. Synergy Systems, Inc., ARB No. 04-046, ALJ No. 2003-LCA-22, slip op. at 7 (ARB June 30, 2006), that the time limits for processing a complaint under the Immigration and Nationality Act are directional and not jurisdictional. On appeal, the Respondent urged the ARB to reconsider Synergy in light of ARB precedent involving the statute of limitations for filing an INA complaint. The ARB found that the ALJ had correctly described the distinction between the requisites for meeting the statute of limitations deadline for filing a complaint with Wage and Hour and the time prescribed for rendering a decision once the complaint is file. Alternatively, the Respondent argued that Synergy should not be applied because the Administrator's delay was too excessive to be excused. The ARB, however, found that the Administrator's delay did not bar him from processing the complaint.
SUBPOENAS; ARB DECLINES TO REVISIT CHILDERS DECISION, WHICH APPLIES TO FORMAL ALJ HEARINGS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALIYT ACT, AND WHICH IS NOT LIMITED TO SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE PERSON TO BE SUBPOENED IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF A PARTY
SUBPOENAS; ERROR BY ALJ IN REFUSING TO ISSUE PREHEARING SUBPOENA REMEDIED BY TESTIMONY AT HEARING WHERE NO PREJUDICE TO ABILITY TO MOUNT DEFENSE ESTABLISHED
In Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. Integrated Informatics, Inc., ARB No. 08-127, ALJ No. 2007-LCA-26 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011), the Complainant was a computer programmer who had been hired as a nonimmigrant worker under the H-1B regulations. He filed a complaint after resigning his employment alleging that the Respondent failed to properly compensate him as required by the labor condition application regulations. The Respondent requested that the ALJ issue a subpoena requiring the Complainant to appear for deposition. The Wage and Hour Administrator - who was the prosecuting party before the ALJ - opposed the motion because the Immigration and Nationality Act does not expressly authorize administrative law judges to issue subpoenas in labor condition application cases. The ALJ agreed and denied the motion. Further, the ALJ found 29 C.F.R. § 18.29(a)(3) inapplicable because the Complainant was under no party's control. Section 18.29(a)(3) is the OALJ rule of practice stating the power of an ALJ to compel the appearance of witnesses in control of the parties. In denying the request for issuance of a subpoena, the ALJ declined to follow the ARB's decision in Childers v. Carolina Power & Light, ARB No. 98-077, ALJ No. 1997-ERA-032 (ARB Dec. 29, 2000), because Childers was decided under the whistleblower provision of the Energy Reorganization Act, and because the individuals sought to be subpoenaed in that case were employees under the respondent's control.
On appeal, the Respondent contended that the ALJ erred in denying its motion to subpoena the Complainant. The Administrator urged the ARB to reexamine and reject Childers as it "is at odds with the well established principle that an ALJ does not have the authority to issue subpoenas absent Congress's clear grant of such authority." USDOL/OALJ Reporter at 7. The ARB, however, declined to reexamine its decision in Childers. The ARB found that, because both the ERA and the INA contain mandates that ALJs provide formal hearings in cases arising under those statutes, the ALJ's distinction of Childers on this basis was not valid. The ARB also held that the Childers rationale was not limited to cases in which the individual to be subpoenaed is under the control of one of the parties.
The Board, however, found that any error by the ALJ made in refusing to follow Childers was harmless because the Complainant testified at the hearing, and the Respondent cross-examined him. The Respondent offered no support for its assertion that it was prejudiced by its inability to subpoena the Complainant prior to the hearing, and therefore the ARB found no due process concerns over the Respondent's ability to mount its defense.
REIMBURSEMENT OF COURT REPORTER COSTS AS SANCTION; SHORT DELAYS IN ARRIVAL OF DEPONENTS FOUND NOT TO JUSTIFY ORDER OF REIMBURSEMENT; ADMINISTRATOR'S COUNSEL DID NOT ENGAGE IN MISCONDUCT IN, EX PARTE, HAVING COURT REPORTER RECORD TIME OF ARRIVAL OF DEPONENT
In Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. Integrated Informatics, Inc., ARB No. 08-127, ALJ No. 2007-LCA-26 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011), the Respondent sought reimbursement for the cost of the court reporter's services as a sanction on the Administrator's counsel based on the late arrivals of two deponents. The ALJ denied the motion for costs finding that the Respondent's allegations of enormous delays and improper conduct by the Administrator's counsel in requesting the court reporter to record one deponent's late arrival with no one from the Respondent present, were false representations of what had happened. On appeal, the ARB affirmed the ALJ's findings that there had not been extended delays between depositions for the arrival of deponents or that the Administrator's counsel had engaged in misconduct for asking the court reporter to record the arrival time of the last deponent.
MOTION FOR CONTINUATION OF HEARING BASED ON ABSENCE OF ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR, WHO HAD BEEN CALLED AS WITNESS; ALJ DID NOT ABUSE DISCRETION IN DENYING MOTION WHERE EXPECTED TESTIMONY OF ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR WAS NOT MATERIAL
In Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. Integrated Informatics, Inc., ARB No. 08-127, ALJ No. 2007-LCA-26 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011), the Respondent argued on appeal that the ALJ erred in proceeding with the hearing despite the fact that one of the witnesses called by the Respondent, the Assistant District Director for the Atlanta Wage and Hour Division office, was not available to testify. The ALJ ruled the Assistant District Director was not a necessary witness. Although the Assistant District Director's signature was on the Wage-Hour determination letter, the ALJ noted that he was not the investigator and there was no showing that he had any first-hand knowledge of the facts uncovered in the investigation. The ALJ also noted that the Wage-Hour determination letter was not binding on him, and that he had an independent responsibility to evaluate the evidence. On appeal the Respondent contended that it had been prejudiced because the testimony of this witness would have established that Wage-Hour determination was so imprecise that the Administrator should be sanctioned, and that a loan tot he H-1B worker should have been deducted from his wages due under the regulations.
The ARB, employing an abuse of discretion standard, found that the ALJ properly assessed the materiality of the Assistant District Director's projected testimony, and found no proof of prejudice to the Respondent. The ARB noted that the Respondent could have proffered the Assistant District Director's deposition, but did not, and that the matter of the loan deduction was a legal interpretation for which the Assistant District Director's testimony would have been immaterial.
COMPANY POLICY NOT TO COMPENSATE EMPLOYEES FOR TRAVEL TIME IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO AN H-1B EMPLOYER'S OBLIGATION TO PAY H-1B WORKERS THEIR WAGES
In Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. Integrated Informatics, Inc., ARB No. 08-127, ALJ No. 2007-LCA-26 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011), the Respondent argued that the ALJ erred in ordering compensation for the Complainant H-1B worker for two days of travel to install a computer system. The project required the Complainant to travel from Georgia to Phoenix. Two days were travel days, and two days were working onsite. The Respondent argued that its company policy directs that travel time is "banked" towards personal time off and is not compensated. The ARB held that "[e]ven accepting as true that Integrated's policy is not to compensate its employees for travel time, a company policy is not among the exceptions to an H-1B employer's obligation to pay H-1B nonimmigrant workers their wages." USDOL/OALJ Reporter at 14.
LOAN OBLIGATION THAT PREDATED THE LCA AUTHORIZED WORK PERIOD IS BEYOND DOL'S AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE; ACCORDINGLY THE ARB DECLINED TO PERMIT PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS FROM LCA WAGES TO RECOUP LOAN
In Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. Integrated Informatics, Inc., ARB No. 08-127, ALJ No. 2007-LCA-26 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011), the Respondent argued that $1,500 it loaned to the H-1B worker for a car could be withheld from the last three paychecks to recoup the loan. The ALJ held that no more than 25 percent of the last three paychecks could be withheld to recoup the loan pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(9)(iii)(E). On appeal the Respondent argued that it should be entitled to deduct 100 percent of the loan under 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(9)(ii), or in the alternative, that DOL lacks the authority to address loans and deductions made under an agreement outside of the labor condition application. The ARB noted that DOL's jurisdiction under the Immigration and Nationality Act extends only to employment relationships that arise under, or are terminated pursuant to the INA's H-1B provisions. The ARB found that the parties had signed the promissory note for the loan prior to the period of the worker's authorized employment as an H-1B nonimmigrant worker, and therefore the agreement fell outside the H-1B program and was beyond the ALJ's and this Board's authority under the INA to enforce. The ARB thus reversed the ALJ's finding that the Respondent could recoup the loan by making deductions from the worker's wages.
Williams v. Domino's Pizza, ARB No. 09-092, ALJ No. 2008-STA-52 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011)
Final Decision and Order PDF | HTM
Summary:
[STAA Digest V A]
PROTECTED ACTIVITY; REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE NAMES OF COWORKERS WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY PRESSURING THE COMPLAINANT TO VIOLATE THE HOURS OF SERVICE REGULATION DID NOT PREVENT THE COMPLAINANT FROM PREVAIILNG ON A STAA COMPLAINT
In Williams v. Domino's Pizza, ARB No. 09-092, ALJ No. 2008-STA-52 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011), during a meeting to discuss the Complainant's hotline complaint, the Complainant informed a supervisor and a manager that he was being pressured to work outside of the allowable hours of service. He explained the complaint but declined to provide his coworkers' names. The Respondent argued that the Complainant did not assist its investigation of his allegations and therefore, he did not engage in protected activity and was precluded from satisfying his prima facie case. The ARB held that simply refusing to name coworkers who pressured him did not preclude the Complainant from prevailing on a STAA whistleblower complaint.
[STAA Digest V B 2 d]
PROTECTED ACTIVITY; HOTLINE COMPLAINT
An internal complaint through the Respondent's compliance hotline is protected activity under the STAA. Williams v. Domino's Pizza, ARB No. 09-092, ALJ No. 2008-STA-52 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011).
[STAA Digest III J]
EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBILITY OF UNEMPLOYMENT HEARING TRANSCRIPT; STATEMENTS MADE BY AGENTS OF THE EMPLOYER AS PARTY OPPONENT ARE NOT HEARSAY
In Williams v. Domino's Pizza, ARB No. 09-092, ALJ No. 2008-STA-52 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011), the Respondent argued that the ALJ erred when he admitted an unemployment hearing transcript because using it violated the Respondent's due process right to confrontation, and because it was inadmissible hearsay testimony given in a limited forum held for a different, discrete purpose unrelated to the Complainant's retaliation claim. The ARB noted that STAA administrative hearings are conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings, which substantially follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, and that under those rules hearsay statements are inadmissible unless they are defined as non-hearsay or fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. 29 C.F.R. § 18.802. The Board stated:
Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the out-of-court declarant. 29 C.F.R. § 18.801(c). A statement is not hearsay if it constitutes an admission by a party opponent. 29 C.F.R. § 18.801(d)(2).
In this matter, the prior statements that Williams sought to introduce as evidence were statements by Domino's' agents concerning matters within the scope of the agency, made during the existence of the relationship and were therefore, admissions by a party-opponent and not hearsay. As such, the ALJ did not err in admitting the evidence. Neither did the admissions violate Domino's' right to confrontation, as the statements were made by Domino's itself. Even if the evidence was admitted incorrectly, the ALJ had cited other reasons that discredited Domino's' articulated reasons for terminating Williams's employment. For example, the printout from the PeopleNet system unequivocally demonstrated that, contrary to Domino's' assertions, Williams took adequate steps to report the accident, even if not exactly according to company policies.

[STAA Digest IX A 6]
REINSTATEMENT; COMPLAINANT'S PREFERENCE FOR PAYMENT OF FUTURE EDUCATION EXPENSES
In Williams v. Domino's Pizza, ARB No. 09-092, ALJ No. 2008-STA-52 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011), the ALJ ordered reinstatement of the Complainant to his former position. On appeal the Complainant argued that he did not think it will be safe to return to work for the Respondent, and requested instead payment for future education expenses. The ARB noted that reinstatement is an automatic remedy under the STAA, and found that there was insufficient evidence in the record that reinstatement would be impossible, impracticable, or cause irreparable animosity. The ARB thus affirmed the ALJ's order to reinstate the Complainant rather than to award front pay or expenses for education.
Selig v. Aurora Flight Sciences, ARB No. 10-072, ALJ No. 2010-AIR-10 (ARB Jan. 28, 2011)
Final Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint PDF | HTM
Summary:
The ARB affirmed the ALJ's finding that the complaint was not timely filed and that the Complainant had not alleged any circumstances justifying waiving or modifying the limitations period.
Phillips v. Burg Express, ARB No. 10-135, ALJ No. 2010-STA-25 (ARB Jan. 24, 2011)
Final Decision and Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint With Prejudice PDF | HTM
Summary:
Approval of settlement agreement.
Toland v. Firstfleet, Inc., ARB No. 09-091, ALJ No. 2009-STA-11 (ARB Jan. 19, 2011)
Final Decision and Order PDF | HTM
Summary:
The ARB found that the ALJ properly granted summary decision in favor of the Respondent where the Complainant failed to present any evidence to create an issue of material fact to counter the Respondent's documentation showing that the Complainant was discharged for failure to comply with the Respondent's leave procedures.
Anderson v. Amtrak, ARB No. 10-142, ALJ No. 2009-FRS-3 (ARB Jan. 14, 2011)
Notice of Case Closing PDF | HTM
Summary:
After the ALJ denied a motion for reconsideration, the Respondent renewed an earlier petition for review by the ARB. Before the ARB decided whether to grant the petition, the parties entered into a settlement. The ALJ approved the settlement and dismissed the complaint. Consequently, the ARB closed the case pending before it.
Clemmons v. Ameristar Airways, Inc., ARB No. 08-067, ALJ No. 2004-AIR-11 (ARB Jan. 5, 2011)
Order Awarding Attorney's Fees and Costs PDF | HTM
Summary:
ATTORNEY FEE PETITION; DEDUCTIONS FOR OFFICE CONFERENCES, DUPLICATION OF EFFORT, EXCESSIVE HOURS IN REVIEWING AND DRAFTING APPELLATE BRIEFS
In Clemmons v. Ameristar Airways, Inc., ARB No. 08-067, ALJ No. 2004-AIR-11 (ARB Jan. 5, 2011), the Respondent challenged the Complainant's attorney fee request for appellate work before the ARB on the ground that many of the time and task entries were too vague and that no more than two attorneys were reasonably required to respond to its appeals to the ARB. The Complainant's lead attorney explained that he engaged three associates on specific research and writing projects "to conserve costs" because their hourly rates were lower than his.
The ARB observed that in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983), the Supreme Court "emphasized that fee awards may be reduced for inadequately documented hours or for hours that were not 'reasonably expended' due to overstaffing or inexperience. Also excluded is time attributed to office conferences, supervision, and training, and review and revision, since such time is not normally billable to private clients." USDOL/OALJ Reporter at 5 (footnotes omitted). The ARB reviewed the Complainant's fee petition, and found that it showed three office conferences among three attorneys during the Respondent's first appeal to the ARB, some duplication of effort in researching and drafting the brief, and an excessive number of hours for revising and editing the response brief. The ARB revised the fees accordingly. The ARB also found in regard to a second appeal some duplication of effort and many hours spent reviewing and revising a brief by two of Complainant's attorneys. Further, the ARB stated that "spending more than 60 hours to draft a response brief in a second appeal with issues similar to those in the first appeal is excessive." Id. The ARB therefore made additional deductions from the requested fee award.
ATTORNEY FEE PETITION; BLOCK BILLING DISFAVORED UNLESS SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY ESTABLISHED
In Clemmons v. Ameristar Airways, Inc., ARB No. 08-067, ALJ No. 2004-AIR-11 (ARB Jan. 5, 2011), the ARB reiterated that it "requires that an attorney's time and task entries be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. Thus, we disfavor the use of block billing (the practice of grouping multiple tasks into a single time entry), and may make a percentage reduction of the requested fees in lieu of attempting to excise surgically those that are not properly billed." USDOL/OALJ Reporter at 6 (footnote omitted). In the instant case, however, the ARB denied the Respondent's request for a reduction for block billing because, "when read in the context of the billing statement as a whole and in combination with the timeline of the litigation, [the billing entries at issue] do provide enough specificity to determine that the services rendered are compensable and in furtherance of [the Complainant's] defense against [the Respondent's] two appeals." Id. (footnote omitted).
ATTORNEY FEE PETITION; ATTORNEY FEES DISPROPORTIONATE TO DAMAGES AWARDED TO COMPLAINANT
In Clemmons v. Ameristar Airways, Inc., ARB No. 08-067, ALJ No. 2004-AIR-11 (ARB Jan. 5, 2011), the Respondent challenged the Complainant's attorney fee request for appellate work before the ARB on the ground that the requested fees were disproportionate to the amount of damages awarded to the Complainant. The ARB stated that it has declined to reduce attorney's fee awards solely because the amount is larger than the damages recovered. See Hoffman v. Boss Insulation & Roofing, Inc., ARB Nos. 96-091, 97-128; ALJ No. 1994-CAA-4, slip op. at 5 (ARB Jan. 22, 1997) (policy against chilling attorneys from taking moderately complicated cases where the complainant earned modest wages and hence the back pay sought would be small in relation to the attorney time expended; standard that degree of a plaintiff's success is crucial factor). In the instant case, the ARB found that the Complainant's attorneys achieved essentially complete relief under AIR21, and therefore denied the Respondent's request to reduce the attorney fee award based on its disproportionate size.
COSTS NORMALLY PART OF OVERHEAD COMPENSABLE WHERE COMPLAINANT WAS DIRECTLY BILLED FOR SUCH EXPENSES
In Clemmons v. Ameristar Airways, Inc., ARB No. 08-067, ALJ No. 2004-AIR-11 (ARB Jan. 5, 2011), the Respondent argued that the Complainant's request for $1,252.04 in costs should be rejected because photocopying, postage, research, and delivery expenses are part of the attorney's hourly fee and are not compensable. The ARB acknowledged that it has generally affirmed an ALJ's deduction of expenses associated with on-line legal research, photocopies, and postage because they are normally part of a firm's overhead and reflected in an attorney's hourly rate. In the instant case, however, the Complainant's attorney pointed out that his firm bills its clients directly for such expenses, and provided a declaration of the firm's administrative director showing that the Complainant had been so billed. The ARB thus, approved the request for $1,252.04 to compensate the Complainant for out of pocket expenses.
Powell v. City of Ardmore, Oklahoma, ARB No. 09-071, ALJ No. 2007-SDW-1 (ARB Jan. 5, 2011)
Final Decision and Order PDF | HTM
Summary:
The ARB found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that the Complainant was fired for threatening behavior rather than protected activity.

Questions? Contact Us

STAY CONNECTED:

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES:
Manage Preferences	\|	Unsubscribe	\|	Help

GovDelivery, Inc. (800-439-1420) sending on behalf of the United States Department of Labor ·
Frances Perkins Building · 200 Constitution Avenue NW · Washington DC 20210

ad sense

Monday, February 7, 2011

Hydrocodone Bitartrate And Acetaminophen Tablets, Phenobarbital Tablets by Qualitest: Recall - Incorrect Package Labeling

February 07, 2011

Guideline Synthesis

Guideline Summaries

Announcements

Newly Submitted

Health Awareness Topics - February 2011

Quality Measures

Conference News

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory

NGC's Sister Resources