scholarly journals Terrestrial resources injury assessment report : upper Clark Fork River Basin /

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua. Lipton ◽  
David. Cacela ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Assessment Report ◽  
Clark Fork River ◽  
Injury Assessment ◽  
Upper Clark Fork River

Mining-Related Trace Elements in Riparian Food Webs of the Upper Clark Fork River Basin

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-51
Author(s):  
R. A. Pastorok ◽  
A. J. La Tier ◽  
M. K. Butcher ◽  
T. C. Ginn
Keyword(s):  
Trace Elements ◽  
Food Webs ◽  
River Basin ◽  
Clark Fork River ◽  
Upper Clark Fork River

Summer Stream Temperatures Influence Sculpin Distributions and Spatial Partitioning in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin, Montana

Copeia ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 103 (2) ◽  
pp. 416-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan B. Adams ◽  
David A. Schmetterling ◽  
David A. Neely
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Spatial Partitioning ◽  
Clark Fork River ◽  
Upper Clark Fork River

scholarly journals Chemical characterization of sediments and pore water from the upper Clark Fork river and milltown reservoir, Montana

1994 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 1971-1983 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.G. Brumbaugb ◽  
C.G. Ingersoll ◽  
N.E. Kemble ◽  
T.W. May ◽  
J.L. Zajicek
Keyword(s):  
Pore Water ◽  
Chemical Characterization ◽  
Clark Fork River ◽  
Upper Clark Fork River ◽  
Milltown Reservoir

Mercury and Other Mining-Related Contaminants in Ospreys Along the Upper Clark Fork River, Montana, USA

2011 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 681-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heiko W. Langner ◽  
Erick Greene ◽  
Robert Domenech ◽  
Molly F. Staats
Keyword(s):  
Clark Fork River ◽  
Upper Clark Fork River

scholarly journals The interpretation of the amended RAF Act 56 of 1996 and the regulations thereto by the courts with regard to "serious injury" claims.

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 244
Author(s):  
Loma Steynberg ◽  
Raheel Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Motor Vehicle ◽  
Motor Vehicle Accident ◽  
Medical Practitioner ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Medical Practitioners ◽  
Assessment Report ◽  
Injury Assessment ◽  
Serious Injury ◽  
Serious Injuries

The RAF Amendment Act 19 of 2005 came into effect on 1 August 2008 and sections 17(1) and 17(1A) introduced the concept of “serious injury”. This entails that a third-party claimant who wishes to claim compensation for non-patrimonial loss suffered after a motor-vehicle accident has to prove that his or her injury is “serious”. If the claimant’s injury is not considered “serious” no compensation will be awarded for the non-patrimonial loss suffered and, furthermore, the claimant will also not be entitled to claim any compensation from the wrongdoer in terms of common law (s 21 of the RAF Act). In a sequence of unreported cases the courts have provided guidelines on the procedure to be followed in serious-injury claims. Firstly, a claimant must submit himself or herself to an assessment by a medical practitioner registered under the Health Professions Act. Secondly, the medical practitioner must assess if the injuries sustained by the claimant fall within the list of “non-serious injuries”, and if so, compensation for non-patrimonial loss will not be awarded. If the injury is not on the list of non-serious injuries, the medical practitioner may assess the injuries and if they result in 30 per cent or more of whole-person impairment (“WPI”) compensation for non-patrimonial loss may be awarded. If the evaluation is that the 30 per cent of WPI cannot be reached, non-patrimonial loss may still be claimed if the injuries fall within the “narrative test”, namely (a) resulting in a serious long-term impairment or loss of a body function; (b) constituting permanent serious disfigurement; (c) resulting in severe long-term mental or severe long-term behavioural disturbance or disorder; or (d) resulting in the loss of a foetus. A plaintiff may use either of the two tests to establish serious injury and in such a manner qualify for compensation for non-patrimonial loss. A medical practitioner must complete and submit a serious-injury assessment report on the RAF 4. If the RAF is not satisfied that the injury has been correctly assessed they must (a) reject the serious-injury assessment report within 60 days and furnish reasons for the rejection; or (b) direct that the third party submit himself or herself, at the cost of the Fund, to a further assessment. Thereafter the RAF must either accept the further assessment or dispute the further assessment within 90 days. An Appeal Tribunal, consisting of three independent medical practitioners, has been created to hear these disputes.

scholarly journals Expert rebuttal opinions regarding injuries to terrestrial resources, Clark Fork River Basin, MT /

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Hector. Galbraith ◽  
Joshua. Lipton ◽  
Lyman. McDonald ◽  
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Clark Fork River
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document