Conducting the Review Hearing Sample Clauses

Conducting the Review Hearing. The Review Hearing Committee shall assess the claim(s) the provider made in its request for review by examining all information and documentation submitted by the provider. The provider must be given a reasonable opportunity to question Coalition staff-persons or sub-contractor staff regarding the determinations of the Coalition and to present evidence before the Review Hearing Committee. The Coalition will also be provided a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence to rebut any claims made by the provider.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Conducting the Review Hearing. The Review Hearing Committee will assess the provider claims in the request for review by examining all information and documentation submitted by the provider. • The provider will be given reasonable opportunity to question ELCFH staff regarding the determinations and to present evidence before the Review Hearing Committee. • ELCFH will also be provided reasonable opportunity to submit evidence to rebut any claims made by the provider.

Related to Conducting the Review Hearing

  • Review Stages The Project Architect shall submit documents to the Owner for review at completion of the Schematic Design Phase, Design Development Phase and at the following stages of completion of the Construction Documents Phase as follows: 50%, 75%, 100%

  • Hearing The grievance shall be heard by a single arbitrator and both parties may be represented by such person or persons as they may choose and designate, and the parties shall have the right to a hearing at which time both parties will have the opportunity to submit evidence, offer testimony, and make oral or written arguments relating to the issues before the arbitrator. The proceeding before the arbitrator shall be a hearing denovo.

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Title Review Seller shall be obligated to clear any and all encumbrances of title of an ascertainable monetary amount (“Seller Liens”), which Seller’s Liens Seller shall cause to be satisfied and or released at or prior to Closing (with Seller having the right to apply the Purchase Price or a portion thereof for such purpose). Notwithstanding the foregoing, prior to the Due Diligence Date, Purchaser shall give notice (“Purchaser’s Title Notice”) to Seller of the existence of any encumbrances and defects in title to which Purchaser objects and that are not Permitted Encumbrances (“Title Objections”). Seller shall, within five (5) business days from receipt of Purchaser’s Title Notice, notify Purchaser of those Title Objections that Seller elects not to attempt to remove or correct, provided that failure of Seller to give said notice shall be deemed to mean that Seller shall remove or correct all of Purchaser’s Title Objections. In the event Seller elects to attempt to remove or correct Title Objections(s) and by the later of the Due Diligence Date or the date which is thirty (30) business days following Seller’s receipt of Purchaser’s Title Notice, Seller has not arranged for removal or correction of said Title Objections, then Purchaser shall either (i) terminate this Agreement in which event the Deposit shall be returned to Purchaser and the parties hereto shall have no further rights or obligations hereunder, except for rights and obligations which, by their terms, survive the termination hereof, or (ii) accept the condition of the title to the Property as it then is, without diminution of the Purchase Price. If Purchaser fails to elect (i) above, then Purchaser shall be deemed to have elected (ii) above. Encumbrances and defects to title that are not included in Purchaser’s Title Objections and those Title Objections that are accepted pursuant to this subsection shall be deemed to be Permitted Encumbrances. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Seller’s Liens shall not be deemed Permitted Encumbrances. Recording fees for recording documents to discharge Title Objections and Seller’s Liens shall be borne by Seller.

  • Review The practitioner reviews the treatment plan and discusses, when appropriate, case circumstances and management options with the attending (or referring) physician. The reviewer consults with the requesting physician when more clarity is needed to make an informed coverage decision. The reviewer may consult with board certified physicians from appropriate specialty areas to assist in making determinations of coverage and/or appropriateness. All such consultations will be documented in the review text. If the reviewer determines that the admission, continued stay or service requested is not a covered service, a notice of non-coverage is issued. Only a physician, behavioral health practitioner (such as a psychiatrist, doctoral-level clinical psychologist, certified addiction medicine specialist), dentist or pharmacist who has the clinical expertise appropriate to the request under review with an unrestricted license may deny coverage based on medical necessity.

  • Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be:

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Business Review Meetings In order to maintain the relationship between the Department and the Contractor, each quarter the Department may request a business review meeting. The business review meeting may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Successful completion of deliverables • Review of the Contractor’s performance • Review of minimum required reports • Addressing of any elevated Customer issues • Review of continuous improvement ideas that may help lower total costs and improve business efficiencies.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Personnel File Review a. A unit member has the right upon his/her own request to review the contents of his/her personnel file. The review will be conducted in the presence of the administrator, or his/her designee, responsible for the safekeeping of such file. The employee may have a committee person assist in said review. Such review shall be conducted at a mutually agreeable time. A copy of requested material will be provided.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.