CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 4 1. The conduct described in the Findings of Fact constitute grounds for disciplinary 5 action pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-3552(A)(1) and (3) and violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 6 3501(9)(i) which states, “Any conduct or practice which is contrary to recognized standards of 7 ethics of the respiratory therapy profession or any conduct or practice which does or might 8 constitute a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the patient or the public.”
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 2 1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3251 et seq. 3 and the rules promulgated by the Board relating to Respondent’s professional practice as a 4 licensed behavioral health professional.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 20 1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3251 et seq. 21 and the rules promulgated by the Board relating to Respondent’s professional practice as a 22 licensed behavioral health professional.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 14. The Commissioner has jurisdiction over Respondent as well as the subject matter of this proceeding, and such proceeding is held in the public interest.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 3.1 The Board has jurisdiction over the Respondent and the subject matter of this proceeding.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 10. The application form’s disclosure questions specifically require disclosure of insurance administrative matters.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1606, 32-1663 and 32-1664, the Board has subject matter and personal jurisdiction in this matter. The conduct and circumstances described in the Findings of Fact constitute violations of
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 21 1. The Board possesses subject matter and personal jurisdiction over 22 Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1201 et seq.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Commission has pending before it a petition for reconsideration in Docket No. 00-000-00, a rulemaking proceeding which could impact the agreement here at issue. Likewise, the Commission has pending Docket No. 00-000-00, a case involving Commission interpretation of 47 USC § 252(c)(1) and (2). The Commission deems resolution of those issues in the other dockets unnecessary for approval of the instant agreement, subject to possible later modification based on such resolution. The Agreement should be approved now as meeting the requirements of 47 USC § 252(e)(1).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Commission, under the provisions of Section 252(e)(1) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,4 is required to review negotiated interconnection agree- ments. It may only reject a negotiated agreement upon a finding that its implementation would be discriminatory to a nonparty or inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.5 Based upon its review of the Agreement between CenturyLink and Onvoy and its findings of fact, the Commission concludes the Agreement is neither discriminatory nor inconsistent with the public interest and shall be approved. THE COMMISSION ORDERS THAT:
