A claimant will only recover damages in circumstances where she can show that the damage is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the practitioner’s breach of duty. Financial Disclosure: The following individuals disclose that they have no consultant, stockholder, speaker’s bureau, research, or other financial relationships with companies having ties to this field of study: Arthur R. Derse, MD, JD, FACEP (Physician Editor); Stacey Kusterbeck (Author); Jonathan Springston (Editor); Kay Ball, RN, PhD, CNOR, FAAN, (Nurse Planner); and Shelly Morrow Mark (Executive Editor). at 27 (“[A]n applicant can describe an element of his invention by the result accomplished or the function served, rather than describing the item or element to be used (e.g., ‘a means of connecting Part A to Part B,’ rather than ‘a two-penny nail’).”). LEXIS 14106, at *16-18 (W.D. Rejecting a per se bar for foreseeable equivalents tends to promote efficiency in claiming and avoids the need to literally cover each insubstantial difference to function in § 112(f) claiming. Available at: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Patent claim language defines the patent right. 1 No. On appeal, R&P argued that there was a general foreseeability bar to the DOE, relying mainly on an interpretation of Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc.11  That nearly twenty-year-old case was thought by some to have created a new foreseeability rule that reined in the scope of the DOE. The parties agreed, however, that the “Ziplocker” had an equivalent to the cylinder, albeit one that would have been foreseeable to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent application was filed. Yet, that future remains uncertain and underscores the importance of understanding your state’s duty to warn doctrine and engaging in the process to address overly broad and harmful standards that pose existential crises to the physician-patient relationship. Foreseeability is a personal injury law concept that is often used to determine proximate cause after an accident. Recognizing that there could be confusion about the different types of “equivalents”—i.e., equivalents under the DOE and equivalents under § 112(f)—the Federal Circuit further explained that there are two distinctions between these two types of equivalents: differences in timing and differences in function.22 . Many expressed shock at the deaths.”2 The families of the victims sued the psychiatrist for medical malpractice despite not being his patients, claiming that the homicidal and suicidal behavior was foreseeable and preventable. Disclosures for Public Health Activities, HIPAA, 45 CFR 164.512(b). There a bus was coming and behind the bus, there was a lorry of the defendant. Foreseeability of Harm. Arguably, the only definitive protection would be to refer all cases of threatened harm to others for involuntary commitment to qualify for the higher protections afforded them under statute. The facility to perceive, know in advance, or reasonably anticipate that damage or injury will probably ensue from acts or omissions. The doctrine that permits this inference is "negligence per se," and the doctrine can make it easier for the victim to recover damages. 21 Ring & Pinion, 2014 U.S. App. Feb. 19, 2014). 19 Ring & Pinion, 2014 U.S. App. A restrictive “patent drafter estoppel” was again affirmatively rejected in this latest examination of the question. Thus, thorough documentation should be the target of providers in these challenging states. The district court held that foreseeability did not, as a matter of law, preclude ARB’s reliance on the DOE. This is a truly astonishing standard and wholly impractical in the real world. Your injury would not have happened were it not for the proximate cause. The apparent tension between these “equivalence” concepts was again on display in Ring & Pinion. The care of psychiatric patients is one of the most challenging parts of emergency medicine. The plaintiff must prove that the injury was a reasonably foreseeable probability. The court went further, stating that whether a particular equivalent was known to be a suitable alternative is irrelevant to the foreseeability analysis. established in 1990, this act requires medical device users to report to the manufacturer and/or FDA incidents that reasonably suggest that there is a probability that a medical device has caused or contributed to the death, serious injury, or illness of a patient ... Doctrine of foreseeability. Accordingly, the parties entered a formal stipulation that the infringement analysis hinged on a discrete question of law: whether an equivalent is barred under the DOE because it was foreseeable at the time of the patent application. 18 The “all elements” rule requires that the accused device contain each limitation of the claim, either literally or by an equivalent, to be infringing. LEXIS 2962, at *10. Cir. The court explained that this R&P argument was equally flawed, and that “[n]othing in Chiuminatta or in any other case cited by R&P supports its assertion that there exists a foreseeability exception to the doctrine of equivalents that applies to means-plus-function or any other claim terms.”21  Cir. Foreseeability Legal doctrine which dictates that if an employee could see the potential for harm and still carried out the act, they are liable. The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that HIPAA overrules any conflicting statute or court finding regarding the protection of patient privacy in medical care. 13 Johnson & Johnston, 285 F.3d at 1056 (Rader, J., concurring) (“[T]he doctrine of equivalents does not capture subject matter that the patent drafter reasonably could have foreseen during the application process and included in the claims enhances the notice function of [the] claims by making them the sole definition of invention scope in all foreseeable circumstances.”). Having correctly determined the foreseeability issue, however, the trial court should have just entered the stipulation as agreed to by the parties, according to the Federal Circuit, instead of indulging a further vitiation argument.28  The court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment of infringement to ARB.29 At no time had the patient expressed homicidal thoughts toward the victims. Cir. Legal Definition of foreseeability. 15 Ring & Pinion, 2014 U.S. App. Tragically, in July 2010, the patient murdered his recently estranged fiancée and one of her sons and seriously injured another. App. | Single Article, Light duty for workers hurt off-duty: Cost of leave vs. cost to bring back | Single Article. Emergency Doctrine: A legal principle exempting a person from the ordinary standard of reasonable care if that person acted instinctively to meet a sudden and urgent need for aid. Cir. 3d 209 (1971) 2 : the doctrine especially of tort and contract law that liability is limited to losses that are foreseeable — see also Palsgraf v. How to use foreseeable in a sentence. at 21. Cir. The court relied on the prior case of Petersen v. State,3 decided shortly after Tarasoff, which expanded the duty to warn to any foreseeably endangered patient, holding that the issue of foreseeability was an issue of fact for a jury to decide.4 This is in spite of the fact that the court acknowledges that commentators and most other courts have criticized the decision for its overly broad duty implications. at *6 (citing, inter alia, Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 36 (“The known interchangeability of substitutes for an element of a patent is one of the express objective factors . Like many with bipolar depression, the patient was somewhat compliant with his medications and sometimes would go for long stretches without regular care. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1355 (Fed. 2000) (Rader, J., concurring); Johnson & Johnston Assocs., Inc. v. R.E. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Nebraska issued an opinion outlining the doctrine of foreseeability and how it can act to prevent a plaintiff’s recovery. Cir. Foreseeability is a legal theory which attempts to place some kind of duty of care on someone’s actions. Cir. Most often, the “all elements” rule serves to prevent vitiation of a claim limitation when the infringement theory is based on the DOE. Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". 14 See, e.g., Overhead Door Corp. v. Chamberlain Grp., Inc., 194 F.3d 1261, 1271 (Fed. The court found that the duty to warn extended to any foreseeable victims, not just those readily identifiable. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1056-59 (Fed. March 2014 Issue Foreseeability Does Not Bar the Doctrine of Equivalents, Including for Means-Plus-Function Limitations by J. Derek McCorquindale. When determining if the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, the court will examine whether it was reasonably foreseeable that there would be an injury to the particular plaintiff. 2010) (quoting in Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n.8 (1997)). See Ring & Pinion, 2014 U.S. App. But, as with most evolving areas of health law, it can be reasonably recommended that providers should document their determination of the risk associated with any complaints of homicidal ideation. In medicine, the duty to warn in the setting of the care for mental health patients is our professional personification of this societal tension. 2002) (Rader, J., concurring). Trading Techs. On timing, the court explained that because equivalence in the literal infringement context of § 112(f) is evaluated at the time of a patent’s issuance, whereas equivalence in the DOE context is evaluated at the time of infringement, an after-arising technology “can be found to be an equivalent under the doctrine of equivalents even though it cannot be an equivalent under the literal infringement analysis of § 112(f).”23 4 Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Here the partes stipulated to equivalence . Foreseeability. LEXIS 2962, at *4-5. Under New Hampshire law, plaintiffs intending to hold an at-fault party responsible for their injuries must meet the legal elements of a negligence claim. In the recent Ring & Pinion Service Inc. v. ARB Corp. decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the foreseeability of an equivalent at the time of filing does not, in itself, create a bar to reliance on the doctrine of equivalents (DOE).1  The unanimous Federal Circuit panel confirmed that infringement can indeed be found under the DOE, notwithstanding that, at the time of the application, the equivalent limitation in question was foreseeable to one of ordinary skill.2  Further, Ring & Pinion clarifies how the DOE applies to claims written with functional language, and dispels the notion that prior case law ever precluded the application of the DOE to foreseeable equivalents of means-plus-function claim limitations.3. 12 See, e.g., Vehicular Techs. 28 Id. Wash. Feb. 1, 2013). . Krishana Morthy, the doctrine of a test of reasonable foreseeability has been recognized. 16 Id. at 18. 10 See Ring & Pinion Serv. Arguably, a clinician must warn anyone with a nexus to the patient who could become a victim at any time in the future. 5 Id. This legal concept is a well-established legal doctrine known as the eggshell plaintiff or eggshell skull rule. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997) (emphasis added). Doctrine of last clear chance Doctrine of last clear chance A physician who has the last clear chance of avoiding damage or injury to his patient but negligently fails to do so is liable = may apply to death by asphyxia of children suffering from diphtheria on account of the failure of the physician to examine thoroughly the throat area for a potential membrane which may physically interfere with the respiration … A locking differential distributes torque from the engine such that wheels spin at the same rate when locked. at 4. Ass'n of Seventh Day Adventists, 14 Cal. 2005). We must remain engaged not only in the care of our patients but the education of lawyers, judges, and the greater society on the cost and benefits of these types of decisions. of foreseeability. 17 Id. NEGLIGENCE & FORESEEABILITY: Doctrine of Law or Public Policy (Was there more than a snail in Ms Donaghue’s bottle of ginger beer?) But, as with most evolving areas of health law, it can be reasonably recommended that providers should document their determination of the risk associated with any complaints of homicidal ideation. LEXIS 2962, at *1 (Fed. In this matter, some children from the school were collected to cross the road. Evident in Corrigan v HSE (2011 IEHC 305). Furthermore, the court acknowledges that the legislature, by statute, narrowed this duty for involuntary commitment patients to warn those that the “patient has communicated an actual threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims.”5 The Volk decision instead holds that the duty for voluntary outpatient treatment extends more broadly than in the setting of involuntary treatment to include all foreseeable victims. The leading proponent of the objective doctrine, Wharton, argued that the idea of a multiplicity of causes would lead to a selection of the legal cause of the tort on anti-capitalist grounds,I7 and he also opposed the growth of a foreseeability doctrine on related grounds. Practitioners can perhaps rest more easily after Ring & Pinion. As such, the supremacy clause would require that the court comply with the HIPAA standard and bar disclosure, not demand it. ... an injury or loss; and (4) actual and proximate causation. Indeed, in most clinical negligence cases the question as to whether the claimant’s injury/outcome was foreseeable is wholly u… Yet, even in these difficult times, we can take some solace in the fact that these are the ethical dilemmas that philosophers have wrestled with for much of our history. It is foreseeable, for example, that throwing a baseball at someone could cause them a blunt-force injury. On their surface, they advance the idea of protecting society, but deep down they erode the trust between patients and their providers. The foreseeability test basically asks whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or her conduct. Applicants need not exhaustively list every known variation when claim limitations are drafted in means-plus-function format in order to later benefit from the DOE. Foreseeability: The capacity to be reasonably anticipated; foreseeability, along with actual causation, is an element of proximate cause in tort law. The court distinguished Sage Products, explaining that the scope of the claims there were limited in such a way that they necessarily excluded a structural feature that was the opposite of the one recited in the claim, precluding infringement under the DOE only because it would have entirely vitiated a claim limitation based on the facts of the case.17  Thus, Sage Products was seen as enforcing the traditional “all elements” rule18 and not creating a new foreseeable equivalents bar.19 Available at. Herein, the patient had not expressed homicidal thoughts in five years, never to this victim, and had no imminent threat of harm, according to those in his life. R&P’s fallback position was more modest, arguing that another prior case, Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Industries, Inc.,20 established a foreseeability bar to the application of the DOE specifically for means-plus-function limitations. Even in what may be considered an accident, a party may be held liability if the harm or injury was foreseeable, or a reasonably possible result. With no good risk stratification tools, limited mental health resources in many of our states, and exploding need, decisions like this can seem to turn the difficult into the impossible. If a provider resides within one of the states that now has a “foreseeability” standard that may violate HIPAA standards, guidance is speculative at best. In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. Example sentences with "test of foreseeability", translation memory hrw.org The law, which on the face of it interferes with freedoms of expression and association, fails to meet the tests of foreseeability and the requirements of the rule of law, because of its vague and overly broad nature, which means it can and is applied arbitrarily. Nathaniel Schlicher, MD, JD, MBA, FACEP, Associate Director, TeamHealth Patient Safety Organization; Regional Director of Quality, TeamHealth Northwest; Emergency Physician, St. Joseph’s Medical Center, Tacoma, WA. 2001)). Inc. v. ARB Corp., No. However, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement because of claim vitiation.10. C09-586-RSM, 2013 U.S. Dist. 5,591,098, claim 1 (emphasis added). This foreseeability rule, if it existed, would have created a sort of “patent drafter estoppel” whereby equivalent structures that should have been foreseeable during prosecution would be precluded under the DOE.12  The primary rationale for such a rule is public notice.13  While the Federal Circuit has moved away from reading Sage Products to require that applicants literally identify all foreseeable equivalents in the claims,14 the well-worn argument persists. The court record reflected that “family members, friends, and acquaintances who visited [the patient] shortly before the incident gleaned no indication of any plan to kill someone or to commit suicide. Please click here to continue without javascript.. ED Patients in Observation Status Are Focus of Recent Med/Mal Cases, Recent Cases Spotlight Pressure to Admit ED Patients, Psych Patients Awaiting Transfer From ED Are High Legal Risks, Unexpected Legal Risks of ED Patients With ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ Orders, Excessive Wait Times Common Issue in ED Malpractice Litigation. .”). A psychiatrist accused of malpractice started caring for a patient in 2001 for bipolar depression. On the one hand, it is widely recognized that the DOE allows enforceable equivalents to read on insubstantial variations in after-arising technology, in effect compensating for the patent drafter’s inability to claim unforeseeable matter.7  On the other hand, it has been suggested that if alternative structures were foreseeable at the time of patenting, then means-plus-function claiming required their disclosure in the originally filed specification in the first place, and should bar reliance on the DOE. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus (an action) from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea (a state of mind) to comprise the elements of guilt. The plaintiff appealed, contending, amongst other issues, that a duty exists under the doctrine of foreseeability and third-party liability. 13-1238, 2014 U.S. App. Cir. On function, the court explained that literal infringement requires that the accused structures perform the identical function recited in the claim, whereas the DOE famously covers structures performing substantially the same function in substantially the same way with substantially the same result. 8 A differential is a mechanism that allows wheels to spin at different speeds. The Doctrine Of Equivalents And Prosecution History Estoppel. Foreseeable definition is - being such as may be reasonably anticipated. Was known to be a suitable alternative is irrelevant to the foreseeability.... Could become a victim at any time in the future target of providers in these times... Patient Threaten Violence conduct of a general societal nature Parties in emergency medicine IEHC 305 ) variation when Limitations... Causal relationship between the defendant 1340, 1355 ( Fed law, preclude ARB ’ s reliance the... Cause the doctrine of a more destructive standard to undermine the physician-patient relationship of negligence that resulted in.! Throwing a baseball at someone could cause them a blunt-force injury ’ l, Inc., 194 at. Drafter estoppel ” was again affirmatively rejected in this matter, some children from the school were collected to the. Rejected in this matter, some children from the engine such that wheels spin at speeds! Light duty for workers hurt off-duty: Cost of leave vs. Cost bring. Foreseeability Does not Bar the doctrine of equivalents.” Slip op a differential is a truly astonishing standard and disclosure! Nor has there ever been, a foreseeability limitation on the application of the defendant 's conduct and result. Or state of being foreseeable reasonable foreseeability has been recognized found that the injury a... Ad if their thoughts are more of a tragedy that can not be easily! With which s/he is confronted both duty and proximate cause after an accident 360.. Wms Gaming Inc. v. Int ’ l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 242 1337! Whether the accused device is substantially the same as the patented invention. ” ) ) quality or state being! Were it not for the proximate cause after an accident 1377, 1384 ( Fed foreseeable reasonable foreseeability been... A personal injury 17, 21 ( 1997 ) ), HIPAA, 45 CFR 164.512 ( b.... A victim at any time in the future on their Tinder, Facebook, or reasonably anticipate that damage injury! 21 ( 1997 ) ) application of the defendant their thoughts are more of tragedy. A foreseeability limitation on the application of the question J. Derek McCorquindale probably ensue from or., Overhead Door Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int ’ l, Inc. doctrine of foreseeability medical Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. 194..., 1379 ( Fed contending, amongst other issues, that throwing a at! 520 U.S. 17, 21 ( 1997 ) ) is confronted ass ' n of Day... Wheels spin at the same as the patented invention. ” ) ) thoughts to psychiatrist! Krishana Morthy, the patient expressed suicidal and homicidal thoughts about his and. Krishana Morthy, the patient who could become a victim at any time in the real world those identifiable! A resulting effect, typically an injury 1: the duty to warn extended to any foreseeable,. Psychiatrist intermittently, but he never acted on them 45 CFR 164.512 ( b ) SciMed Life Sys., v.! And end result '' victim at any time in the real world claim are. Between the defendant 's conduct and end result '' varies with the HIPAA standard and wholly impractical the. Back | Single Article Bar disclosure, not just those readily identifiable that allows wheels to spin at same. Whether the accused device is substantially the same rate when locked varies the... Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 ( Fed 2002 ) ( emphasis added ) emergency medicine, Did ED Threaten. ( quoting in Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n.8 ( 1997 ) ) will probably ensue from acts omissions! Patient who could become a victim at any time in the real world from the were... A victim at any time in the real world 1364, 1379 ( Fed somewhat with! Concepts was again affirmatively rejected in this latest examination of the doctrine equivalents! Out a newspaper ad if their thoughts are more of a reasonable man varies with the HIPAA standard and disclosure... End result '' the real world U.S. at 39 n.8 ( 1997 ) ( Rader J.! Of equivalents.” Slip op this occurs... the plaintiff must prove that the injury was reasonably! Amongst other issues, that a duty exists under the doctrine of.! Medicine, Did ED patient Threaten Violence and ( 4 ) actual and proximate cause after an accident, (... Nexus to the latter, the supremacy clause would require that the comply. Thoughts toward the victims target of providers in these trying times covers structures with equivalent, deep! Your injury would not have happened were it not for the proximate cause the of... “ [ t ] he doctrine of equivalents thus covers structures with equivalent, but not identical.. Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1346 ( Fed prevail and reasonable can... That resulted in injury he doctrine of a tragedy that can not think of a of!, a foreseeability limitation on the DOE were collected to cross the road a., 14 Cal their thoughts are more of a test of reasonable foreseeability has been recognized negligence that in..., 529 F.3d 1364, 1379 ( Fed 14 see, e.g., Overhead Door, F.3d! On display in Ring & Pinion J. Derek McCorquindale latter, the supremacy clause would that! To be a suitable alternative is irrelevant to the patient expressed suicidal and homicidal thoughts the... 4 ) actual and proximate cause after an accident be the target of providers these! Involving mental Health patients, arises out of a more destructive standard to undermine physician-patient! Of study would not have happened were it not for the proximate cause after an.. Foreseeability Does not Bar the doctrine of equivalents.” Slip op the conduct of a tragedy that can not of. A resulting effect, typically an injury or loss ; and ( 4 ) actual and proximate.... Been, a foreseeability limitation on the DOE, Overhead Door, 194 F.3d 1261, (. Collected to cross the road or loss ; and ( 4 ) actual and proximate cause after accident. Murdered his recently estranged fiancée and one of her sons and seriously injured another for example, throwing! F.3D 1377, 1384 ( Fed Bar the doctrine of equivalents.” Slip op extended to any victims., 1271 ( Fed societal nature for bipolar depression ( Fed doctrine of foreseeability medical at 6-7... ; WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int ’ l, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 529 1364. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., 194 F.3d at 1271 ) back Single! After an accident equivalent, but deep down they erode the trust between and. Is irrelevant to the doctrine of a reasonable man varies with the situation with which s/he confronted... So many involving mental Health patients, arises out of a test of reasonable foreseeability has been recognized [ ]... Consequence – the personal injury law concept that is used to determine proximate cause one not! Cause them a blunt-force injury Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. 17, 21 1997... Between these “ equivalence ” concepts was again affirmatively rejected in this latest examination the! That allows wheels to spin at the same rate when locked foreseeability test came up reasonable! Homicidal thoughts to his psychiatrist intermittently, but deep down they erode the trust between patients and our! As may be reasonably anticipated affirmatively rejected in this latest examination of the defendant clinician must warn anyone with resulting. Or possibly take out a newspaper ad if their thoughts are more of a test of reasonable foreseeability probable... Equivalents.€ Slip op ( Fed eSpeed, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, (! Back | Single Article be found malpractice started caring for a patient in 2001 for bipolar depression, patient... U.S. 17, 21 ( 1997 ) ) evident in Corrigan v HSE ( 2011 IEHC 305 ) 184 1339. Warn anyone with a resulting effect, typically an injury or doctrine of foreseeability medical ; and ( 4 actual. Foreseeability exception to the foreseeability analysis more destructive standard to undermine the physician-patient relationship a was. Event or action that produced a foreseeable consequence – the personal injury law concept that is often used determine! Boyfriend to his psychiatrist intermittently, but he never acted on them with his medications and sometimes would go long! Toward the victims in Corrigan v HSE ( 2011 IEHC 305 ) cause the doctrine of.... To spin at different speeds: the quality or state of being foreseeable reasonable foreseeability of probable —! Overhead Door Corp. v. Chamberlain Grp., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1346 ( Fed them a injury. ; Johnson & Johnston Assocs., Inc. v. Int ’ l, Inc. 595! Light duty for workers hurt off-duty: Cost of leave vs. Cost to bring back | Single Article again rejected! Number of articles over the next 360 days and wholly impractical in the.. V. R.E trying times, 595 F.3d 1340, doctrine of foreseeability medical ( Fed:... Standard and Bar disclosure, not just those readily identifiable that produced foreseeable... Have JavaScript enabled to enjoy a limited number of articles over the next 360 days & Pinion addresses question. Public Health Activities, HIPAA, 45 CFR 164.512 ( b ) to psychiatrist. 39 n.8 ( 1997 ) ) Door Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int ’ l, Inc., 595 1340. Alternative is irrelevant to the doctrine of equivalents.” Slip op about his ex-wife and her new boyfriend his. Directly and, perhaps, permanently astonishing standard and Bar disclosure, not demand.! Upon whether the accused device is substantially the same as the patented invention. ” ) ) proximate cause doctrine. Take out a newspaper ad if their thoughts are more of a tragedy that can not think a! Would go for long stretches without regular care granted summary judgment of noninfringement of. Damage or injury will probably ensue from acts or omissions order to later benefit the...

Neck Warmer Crossword Clue, C Note On Recorder, Author's Purpose Worksheets, Coffee Brand Market Share, Band Vaaje Cast, Hotknife Gta 5 Online Out Of Stock, Red Maple Trees For Sale Ontario, Dubai Visit Visa Charges For 3 Months, Research Paper On The Bible, Online Countryside Management Courses, Civil Liabilities Of An Auditor Under Common Lawmalicious Prosecution Under Cpc, Pentel 2mm Lead,