Citation Nr: 0508818
Decision Date: 03/24/05 Archive Date: 04/01/05
DOCKET NO. 03-05 854 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in Manchester, New Hampshire
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent
for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The veteran
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Jason A. Lyons, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from March 1965 to March
1968.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a November 2002 rating decision in
which the RO granted service connection and assigned an
initial 10 percent evaluation for PTSD, effective July 18,
2002. That same month, the veteran's representative filed a
notice of disagreement (NOD) with the initial rating assigned
for PTSD. A statement of the case (SOC) was issued in
December 2002, and the veteran's representative filed a
substantive appeal in January 2003.
In July 2003, the veteran testified during a hearing before
RO personnel; a transcript of that hearing is associated with
the claims file. As noted in an March 2004 supplemental SOC
(SSOC), the RO later increased the initial rating assigned
for PTSD to 30 percent, also effective July 18, 2002.
Because the claim for a higher rating for PTSD involves a
request for a higher initial evaluation following the grant
of service connection, the Board has characterized this claim
in light of the distinction noted in Fenderson v. West, 12
Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999) (distinguishing initial rating
claims from claims for increased ratings for already service-
connected disability). Moreover, although the increased the
initial rating assigned for PTSD during the pendency of this
appeal, inasmuch as a higher evaluation is available for this
condition, and the veteran is presumed to seek the maximum
available benefit for a disability, the claim for a higher
initial rating remains viable on appeal. Id.; AB v. Brown,
6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All notification and development action needed to fairly
adjudicate the claim on appeal has been accomplished.
2. Since the July 18, 2002 effective date of the grant of
service connection, the veteran's PTSD has been manifested,
primarily, by anxiety, intrusive recollections from service
in Vietnam, reported passive suicidal ideation (with no
intent), minor difficulties in concentration, low energy
level, and difficulties with social relationships; these
symptoms reflect occupational and social impairment with no
more than occasional decrease in work efficiency and
intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational
tasks.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for an initial evaluation in excess of 30
percent for service-connected PTSD are not met. 38 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R.
§§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411
(2004).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
I. Duties to Notify and Assist
At the outset, the Board notes that, in November 2000, the
Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) was signed into
law. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, and 5107
(West 2002). To implement the provisions of the law, VA
promulgated regulations codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102,
3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2004). The VCAA and its
implementing regulations essentially include, upon the
submission of a substantially complete application for
benefits, an enhanced duty on the part of VA to notify a
claimant of the information and evidence needed to
substantiate a claim, as well as the duty to notify the
claimant what evidence will be obtained by whom. 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). In addition, they define
the obligation of VA with respect to its duty to assist a
claimant in obtaining evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A;
38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c).
Considering the record in light of the above criteria, the
Board finds that all notification and development action
needed to render a fair decision on the claim on appeal has
been accomplished.
Through the December 2002 SOC, the March 2004 and December
2004 SSOCs, and the RO's letter of July 2002, the RO notified
the veteran and his representative of the legal criteria
governing the claim, the evidence that has been considered in
connection with the appeal, and the bases for the denial of
the claim. After each, they were given the opportunity to
respond. Thus, the Board finds that the veteran has received
sufficient notice of the information and evidence needed to
support the claim. Pursuant to the aforementioned documents,
the veteran has also been afforded the opportunity to present
evidence and argument in support of his claim. In its July
2002 letter sent to the veteran in connection with his then
pending claim for service connection for PTSD, the RO
requested that the veteran provide authorization to enable it
to obtain any outstanding private medical records, and
information to obtain any VA treatment records, employment
records, or records from other Federal agencies, as well as
requested that the veteran submit any additional evidence in
his possession. Through this letter, the Board finds that
the statutory and regulatory requirement that VA notify a
claimant what evidence, if any, will be obtained by the
claimant and which evidence, if any, will be retrieved by VA
has been met. See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183,
187 (2002) (addressing the duties imposed by 38 U.S.C. §
5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)).
The Board points out that, in the recent decision of
Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004), the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that
proper VCAA notice should notify the veteran of: (1) the
evidence that is needed to substantiate the claim(s); (2) the
evidence, if any, to be obtained by VA; (3) the evidence, if
any, to be provided by the claimant; and (4) a request by VA
that the claimant provide any evidence in the claimant's
possession that pertains to the claim(s). As explained
above, all of these requirements have been met in the instant
case.
However, Pelegrini also held that the plain language of 38
U.S.C.A. § 5103(a)
(West 2002) requires that notice to a claimant pursuant to
the VCAA be provided
"at the time" that, or "immediately after," the Secretary
receives a complete or
substantially complete application for VA-administered
benefits. In the case now before the Board, the documents
meeting the VCAA's notice requirements were provided both
before and after the rating action on appeal. However, the
Board finds that any lack of pre-adjudication notice in this
case has not prejudiced the veteran in any way.
As indicated above, the RO issued the December 2002 SOC
explaining what was needed to substantiate the veteran's
claim within one month of the July 2001 rating decision on
appeal, and the veteran was thereafter afforded the
opportunity to respond. Moreover, the RO notified the
veteran of the VCAA duties to notify and assist in its letter
of July 2002; neither in response to that letter, nor at any
other point during the pendency of this appeal, has the
veteran informed the RO of the existence of any evidence that
has not already been obtained.
The Board also notes that there is no indication whatsoever
that any additional action is needed to comply with the duty
to assist the veteran. As indicated below, the RO has
obtained outpatient treatment reports from the James A. Haley
VA Medical Center (VAMC), located in Tampa Bay, Florida
(hereinafter Tampa VAMC), dated from October 2001 to July
2002, and from the Manchester VAMC, dated from February 2003
to August 2004. The RO has also obtained the veteran's
Social Security disability compensation records, has arranged
for the veteran to undergo numerous VA examinations, and has
afforded the veteran the opportunity to testify during a July
2003 hearing before RO personnel; the reports of examination
and hearing transcript are of record. In support of his
claim, the veteran has submitted letters from Dr. A.
Drukteinis, private physician, dated from April 1991 and
August 2003, a copy of a January 2003 psychiatric evaluation
conducted by P. Emery, private psychiatrist, and personal
statements dated from April 2002 and July 2002.
Significantly, neither the veteran nor his representative has
identified, and the record does not otherwise indicate, any
existing pertinent evidence that needs to be obtained.
Hence, the Board finds that any failure on VA's part in not
completely fulfilling the VCAA notice requirements prior to
the RO's initial adjudication of the claim is harmless. See
ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc., 159 F.3d 534, 549 (Fed. Cir.
1998); Cf. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1102.
Under these circumstances, the Board finds that there is no
prejudice to the veteran in proceeding, at this juncture,
with a decision on the claim on appeal.
II. Background
Treatment records from the Tampa VAMC, include a February
2002 VA psychiatrist's report that documented the veteran's
complaints of emotional instability, sleep fragmentation,
agoraphobic tendencies, avoidance of war-related stimuli,
hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response, and a sense of
a foreshortened future. The treating psychiatrist diagnosed
PTSD, and assigned a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)
score of 52. A March 2002 report from a VA social worker
reflects the veteran's report that following separation from
service, his behavioral pattern became explosive and
aggressive. The veteran stated that at that time, he
remained isolated and hypervigilant, and suffered from an
exaggerated startle response, sleep disturbances, and panic
attacks. He further stated that he was limited in his daily
activities because of a foreshortened sense of future, and a
sense of weariness. The social worker treating the veteran
assessed PTSD, chronic and severe, with significant
industrial and social impairment, and assigned a GAF score of
50.
A copy of a May 2002 Social Security Administration (SSA)
disability compensation determination documents the veteran's
award of SSA disability benefits for a psychiatric disorder,
with a primary diagnosis of anxiety disorder, and a secondary
diagnosis of affective (mood) disorder, effective January 1,
2002.
On VA examination in October 2002, the veteran reported that
he experienced anxiety when in crowds and public situations,
and that he had not worked in two years and was currently
supporting himself through Social Security disability
benefits. On mental status examination, the veteran's
behavior was appropriate and relaxed, his speech was normal
and relaxed, and his mood and affect were both within normal
limits. There was no indication of depersonalization or
derealization, or of hallucinations or illusions. The
veteran's thought process, for the most part, was goal
directed. There were no preoccupations, no delusions, and no
suicidal or homicidal ideation. On the administration of a
mini-mental status examination, the veteran scored 28 out of
30 points, which according to the examiner placed the veteran
within a normal range of functioning. The veteran showed a
good fund of general information, his ability for verbal
abstractions was good, and his judgment was adequate for him
to handle his own funds. He had some minor difficulties with
concentration, in the areas of "serials 7s" and other
similar tests. The veteran reported that at times he used
alcohol to self-medicate. He stated that he thought about
his Vietnam service on a daily basis, and that when he would
recall events from service he would deal with this
recollection by attempting to focus on another task. He also
reported that in the past he had experienced panic attacks,
in particular in his former occupation as a sales
representative, although he stated that these attacks had not
occurred recently.
The examiner diagnosed PTSD, in remission due to the
effectiveness of medication; and alcohol abuse, possible
alcohol dependence. A GAF score of 80 was assigned. The
examiner further noted that the veteran did not then appear
to have met all of the criteria for PTSD, and that the
veteran had reported that his medication was working well for
him and was helping treat any depression and anxiety;
according to the examiner, the veteran reported that his mood
was a 6 on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 being very depressed and
10 being well-adjusted), and his level of anxiety was also a
6 (0 being very anxious and 10 being very relaxed). Also
noted was that the veteran reported receiving six to eight
hours of good sleep in the evening, and that he was a very
social man with good verbal skills, who appeared to be
functioning well.
A January 2003 report of a psychiatric evaluation conducted
by P. Emery, a private psychiatrist treating the veteran,
notes that the veteran reported he consistently experienced a
state of mind by which he was frequently at a loss to
adequately care for himself. He reported changing jobs on
average every two years since his separation from military
service, and that he had difficulty showing emotion. He
complained of feeling isolated in life, of having phobias,
and of ongoing physical aches and pains. On mental status
examination, the veteran was casually dressed, cooperative,
and attentive. His attitude was of being somewhat tentative,
and he was slow and hesitant in his speech. He appeared
somewhat anxious and depressed, although he was able to reach
some state of relaxation during the interview with the
psychiatrist. The veteran appeared to experience moods of
desperation and self-contempt. He referred to problems with
irritability, anger, and a sense of futility; and as a result
of these problems, his affect was constricted and dysphoric.
There appeared to be a constant threat of depersonalization
because of the veteran's psychiatric condition. It was also
noted that the veteran's memories and somatic experiences
suggested early manifestations of preoccupations and
obsessions. He appeared to be experiencing life
circumstances as being under the control of his past
experiences, and this was contributing to an apparent
impairment of judgment and a feeling of being "burnt out."
The psychiatrist evaluating the veteran diagnosed PTSD,
chronic and severe, and assigned a GAF of 35, noting that the
veteran had experienced major impairments in several areas
such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking,
and mood. The psychiatrist further stated that he considered
the veteran to be totally disabled, primarily due to his
PTSD.
Treatment records from the Manchester VAMC, dated from
February 2003 to August 2004, include a September 2003 report
of an initial mental health assessment conducted by a VA
registered nurse, which noted the veteran's report of
symptoms of anxiety, nightmares, and flashbacks. Also noted
was that the veteran was alert and well-oriented, speech was
normal, affect was blunted and restricted, with a depressed
mood, thought content was normal with no signs of perceptual
disturbances, insight and judgment were good, memory was
intact, and there were no signs of suicidal or homicidal
thoughts. The diagnosis was PTSD and depressive disorder,
with an assigned GAF of 60. An October 2003 VA
psychiatrist's report reflects that the veteran complained of
having anger, irritability, hypervigilance, suspiciousness,
insomnia, nightmares, intrusive thoughts, and reactivity to
reminders of his Vietnam service. It was noted objectively
that the veteran was alert and oriented, his mood appeared
euthymic and affect was appropriate, and his speech and
thought processes were clear and coherent. There was no
evidence of hallucinations or delusions, or suicidal or
homicidal ideation. Attention and concentration appeared
intact on gross examination, and judgment appeared adequate.
The psychiatrist assessed PTSD, with a GAF of 60. The
records of the veteran's ongoing monthly treatment sessions
with this psychiatrist through August 2004, note additional
symptoms of low energy, low motivation, and on one instance,
passive suicidal ideation, although with a clear denial of
active suicidal ideation, intent, or plan. Throughout this
time frame, the veteran's assigned GAF scores ranged from 54
to 60.
During a July 2003 hearing before a Hearing Officer at the
RO, the veteran testified that he had difficulty getting
along with others and was socially isolated, and that he was
having difficulty finding employment as a result of his PTSD
symptoms. He also reported having sleep problems, including
nightmares, which required him to use sleeping medications.
In a September 2003 supplemental opinion, the October 2002 VA
examiner clarified his previous diagnosis, stating that based
on a more recent review of the veteran's claims file
(including the recently submitted report of the January 2003
private psychiatrist's evaluation and updated VA outpatient
records), the veteran did not appear to have any additional
psychiatric disabilities other than PTSD, and alcohol abuse
and/or dependence. The examiner further noted that with
respect to any employment impairment, the veteran's primary
impairment to working appeared to be his alcohol abuse
dependence. He also indicated that the assigned GAF score of
80 for the veteran was appropriate, given that the veteran
was very social, participated in various recreational sports
and hobbies, and maintained a good relationship with many
family members, and also considering that the veteran's
symptoms overall were basically transient, and were being
successfully treated with medication. According to the
examiner, the GAF of 35 assigned by the January 2003 private
psychiatrist suggested that the veteran was unable to take
care of himself or anyone else, when, in fact, the clinical
information in the veteran's case showed otherwise. The
examiner also noted that, in his opinion, the veteran could
return to work if he could gain control of his alcohol abuse
and dependence; that the veteran's PTSD symptoms remained in
remission because of the effectiveness of his medication;
that his assigned GAF score of 80 corresponded to only a
slight impairment in social and occupational function; and
that his symptoms were transient and expectable reactions to
psychosocial stressors other than involving his experiences
from service, such as helping take care of his brother.
On VA examination again in February 2004 (by the same
psychiatrist who conducted the October 2002 examination), the
veteran reported that he remained unemployed. He stated that
over the past year, he had not lost his temper on any
occasion. He reported that he did not have any friends. He
further stated that he would think about his experiences in
Vietnam every day, and that on these occasions, his blood
pressure would rise and he would develop a shortness of
breath. The veteran also related that he had stopped
drinking in 2002, and had also given up playing golf. On
mental examination, the veteran was dressed appropriate to
the weather and appeared neat and clean. His behavior was
initially tense, and he stated that on his previous VA
examination he had inaccurately portrayed his mental state as
less serious than in reality. The veteran's speech was
normal, and his mood, for the most part, was euthymic. His
affect was appropriate and animated. There were no
indications of depersonalization or derealization, and he
denied any hallucinations or illusions. The veteran's
thought process was logical and goal-directed. There were no
obsessions or delusions. The veteran did report having some
passive suicidal ideation, however, he stated that he would
never attempt suicide. He denied any homicidal ideation. He
was most likely functioning in the average to above-average
range of intelligence. Long-term and short-term memory were
commensurate with age. Attention and concentration were also
commensurate with age. Level of abstraction and insight were
within normal limits. The veteran reported receiving nine to
ten hours of sleep each night. He reported having a low
energy level. He denied any experiences of mania.
The examiner diagnosed PTSD, chronic; alcohol abuse, in
remission for one year, by the veteran's report; and diazepam
dependence; and assigned a GAF of 60. The examiner noted
that the veteran at that time appeared to meet the each of
criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. With respect to the
assigned GAF, the examiner noted that this score was in the
"moderate symptoms" range because the veteran had reported
some difficulties with friendships; the veteran had also
stated that he often stayed to himself, though he had
indicated at times he preferred being alone. It was also
noted that the veteran's diazepam dependence appeared to be
secondary to PTSD.
III. Analysis
In general, disability evaluations are assigned by applying a
schedule of ratings that represent, as far as can practically
be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity.
38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic
codes identify the various disabilities.
The veteran's entire history is reviewed when making
disability evaluations. See generally 38 C.F.R. 4.1;
Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995). However, in
Fenderson, the Court noted an important distinction between
an appeal involving the veteran's disagreement with the
initial rating assigned at the time a disability is service
connected. Where entitlement to compensation already has
been established and an increase in the disability rating is
at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of
primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58
(1994). However, where the question for consideration is the
propriety of the initial evaluation assigned, evaluation of
the medical evidence since the grant of service connection
and consideration of the appropriateness of "staged rating"
(i.e., assignment of different ratings for distinct periods
of time, based on the facts found) is required. See
Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126.
The RO has assigned an initial 30 percent disabling, under
38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. However, a General
Rating formula for evaluating psychiatric impairment other
than eating disorders contains the actual rating criteria for
evaluating the veteran's disability.
Under that formula, a 30 percent rating is assigned when
there is occupational and social impairment with occasional
decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of
inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally
functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care,
and conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: depressed
mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less
often), chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss (such as
forgetting names, directions, recent events).
A 50 percent rating is assigned when there is occupational
and social impairment with reduced reliability and
productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect;
circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic
attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding
complex commands; impairment of short-and long-term memory
(e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting
to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract
thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; and difficulty
in establishing and maintaining effective work and social
relationships.
A 70 percent evaluation is warranted for occupational and
social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as
work, school, family relationships, judgment, thinking or
mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional
rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech
intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-
continuous panic or depression affecting ability to function
independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired
impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods
of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal
appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful
circumstances (including work or a work-like setting); and
inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.
A 100 percent evaluation is warranted for total occupational
and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross
impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent
delusions; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger
of hurting self or others; intermittent ability to perform
activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal
personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; and
memory loss for names of closes relatives, own occupation, or
own name.
Considering the medical evidence of record in light of the
above-noted criteria, the Board finds that since the July
2002 effective date of the grant of service connection, the
symptoms associated with the veteran's PTSD have been
consistent with the criteria for no more than the currently
assigned 30 percent evaluation.
The medical evidence of record reflects that the veteran's
PTSD has been characterized, primarily, by intrusive
recollections from service in Vietnam, anxiety (including
social anxiety in public places), possible passive suicidal
ideation, though with no reported intent, minor difficulties
in concentration, low energy level, and difficulty in
maintaining social relationships other than with family
members. The record also reflects that on VA examination in
October 2002, approximately three months after the July 2002
effective date of the grant of service connection for PTSD,
the examiner specifically diagnosed PTSD in remission due to
the effectiveness of medication, and also noted that the
veteran did not at that time appear to have met all of the
criteria for a full diagnosis of PTSD. It was further noted
that the veteran maintained a high level of social activity
and strong verbal skills, and that overall he appeared to be
functioning well.
Additionally, the VA examiner's September 2003 supplemental
opinion and report of a February 2004 follow-up psychiatric
examination reflect that this psychiatrist, in the course of
his review of the veteran's claims file, has taken into
consideration any additional evidence that might initially
appear to suggest the veteran had more serious psychiatric
symptoms-specifically, the VA outpatient treatment reports
reflecting the veteran's subjective report of his psychiatric
history, and the January 2003 private psychiatrist's report-
and while the examiner's assessment of the veteran's
psychiatric condition has been updated to reflect a confirmed
diagnosis of PTSD (with a lower assigned GAF of 60, as
discussed in greater detail below), his overall portrayal of
the veteran's psychiatric disability does not indicate a
significantly higher degree of severity than that previously
noted. In his September 2003 supplemental opinion, the
examiner noted that the veteran's psychiatric symptoms
remained in remission due to the effectiveness of his
medication, that these symptoms appeared to be transient
reactions to psychosocial stressors unrelated to PTSD, and
that the veteran's impairment in employment appeared to be
due to alcohol abuse and dependence, and not his PTSD. The
report of the February 2004 examination reflects that the
veteran reported increased difficulties in maintaining
friendships, and that the veteran may have developed a
diazepam dependence secondary to his PTSD symptoms; it was
further noted, however, that the veteran's speech continued
to be normal, his mood was euthymic and affect was
appropriate, his thought process was logical and goal-
directed, and there was no indication of any obsessions,
hallucinations, or delusions.
The Board finds that these symptoms are reflective of
occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease
in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to
perform occupational tasks, the level of impairment
contemplated in the currently assigned 30 percent disability
rating. However, the symptoms associated with the veteran's
PTSD have not at any point met the criteria for at least the
next higher, 50 percent, evaluation.
As noted above, a 50 percent evaluation requires occupational
and social impairment with reduced reliability and
productivity due to certain symptoms; however, the Board
finds that those delineated symptoms are not characteristics
of the veteran's disability. Specifically, the veteran has
not been found to have a flattened affect; circumstantial,
circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more
than once a week; or difficulty in understanding complex
commands. The veteran has also not been shown to have any
significant impairment of short-and long-term memory (e.g.,
retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to
complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract
thinking; disturbances of motivations and mood; or difficulty
in establishing and maintaining effective work and social
relationships. While the February 2004 examiner has noted
that the veteran has recently experienced some difficulties
maintaining friendships, there is no indication that he is
unable to maintain social relationships, and the veteran
himself has related that at times he prefers to be alone.
The veteran additionally appears to have good relationships
with family members. Also, while the veteran has reported to
the February 2004 examiner having had some passive suicidal
ideation, the veteran further stated that he would never
attempt suicide. There are no other medical findings from
any other time period referring to instances of active or
passive suicidal ideation. Rather, the extent and severity
of the anxiety, sleep impairment, loss of concentration, and
other symptoms suffered by the veteran in this case, are more
characteristic of the criteria for the 30 percent rating.
Hence, the Board finds that the veteran's symptoms more
closely approximate the criteria for a 30 percent evaluation.
The Board also emphasizes that the GAF scores assigned
throughout the time period pertinent to the instant claim for
increase warrant assignment of no more than the current 30
percent rating. According to the Fourth Edition of the
American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), a GAF is a scale
reflecting the "psychological, social, and occupational
functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental health-
illness." There is no question that the GAF score and the
interpretations of the score are important considerations in
rating a psychiatric disability. See e.g., Richard v. Brown,
9 Vet. App. 266, 267 (1996); Carpenter v. Brown, 8 Vet. App.
240 (1995). However, the GAF scores assigned in a case, like
an examiner's assessment of the severity of a condition, are
not dispositive of the evaluation issue; rather, they must be
considered in light of the actual symptoms of the veteran's
disorder (which provide the primary basis for the rating
assigned). See 38 C.F.R. § 4.126(a).
The Board notes that a VA social worker that treated the
veteran in March 2002 assigned a GAF score of 50, and also
that a private psychiatrist who evaluated the veteran in
January 2003 assigned a score of 35. Under the DSM-IV, a GAF
score between 31 and 40 suggests that a psychiatric
disability is manifested by some impairment in reality
testing or communication (e.g., speech is at times illogical,
obscure, or irrelevant) or major impairment in several areas,
such as work or school, family relations, judgment, thinking,
or mood (e.g., depressed man avoids friends, neglects family,
and is unable to work). A GAF score of 41 to 50 is
indicative of serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation,
severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) or serious
impairment in social occupational or social functioning.
The Board points out, however, that each of these assigned
GAF scores (the March 2002 social worker's score assigned in
the 41 to 50 range, and the January 2003 psychiatrist's score
in the 31 to 40 range) appear to indicate a greater degree of
psychiatric impairment than is objectively reflected in the
veteran's treatment reports, to include those records for the
timeframe in which the scores were assigned. The veteran's
treatment records (from both VA and private medical
providers) include no evidence of suicidal ideation, speech
that is at times illogical or irrelevant, or impairment in
reality testing, symptoms that, per the DSM-IV, are generally
indicative of such a GAF between 31 and 40. Similarly, there
is no evidence of severe obsessional rituals, frequent
shoplifting, absence of social relationships, or inability to
maintain employment, symptoms that generally correspond to a
GAF between 41 and 50. Also, the veteran has not had many
friends, but has still been involved with his family. In
view of the veteran's actual psychiatric symptoms, as well as
the more detailed discussion of the veteran's symptoms noted
above, the Board finds that the GAF scores assigned in the 41
to 50 range, and in the 31 to 40 range, respectively, do not
provide any basis for assignment of a higher rating. As the
October 2002 examiner later indicated in his September 2003
supplemental opinion, the GAF of 35 assigned by the January
2003 private psychiatrist suggested that the veteran was
unable to take care of himself or anyone else, when, in fact,
the clinical information in the veteran's case showed
otherwise.
Rather, the Board points out that the scores assigned in this
case by the VA examiner of 80 in October 2002, and 60 in
February 2004 (in connection with the most detailed and
thorough psychiatric evaluations of record in connection with
the veteran's claim for increase), as well as the veteran's
treating psychiatrist at the Manchester VAMC, of between 54
and 60, and the VA psychiatrist at the Tampa VAMC, of 52 in
March 2002, each appear to be more reflective of the
veteran's actual level of psychiatric impairment. According
to the DSM-IV, a GAF score between 51 and 60 is indicative of
moderate symptoms (e.g., flat affect and circumstantial
speech, and occasional panic attacks) or moderate difficulty
in social, occupational, or school functioning. These scores
appear to correspond to the level of impairment contemplated
in the currently assigned 30 percent evaluation.
Thus, the Board finds the record presents no basis for
assignment of more than the current 30 percent schedular
evaluation at any point since the July 18, 2002 effective
date of the grant of service connection for PTSD. Moreover,
as the criteria for the next higher, 50 percent evaluation
have not been met, it follows that the criteria for the next
higher 70 percent evaluation likewise are not met.
Finally, the Board points out that there is no showing that
the veteran's PTSD has, at any point since the effective date
of the grant of service connection, reflected so exceptional
or so unusual a disability picture as to warrant the
assignment of any higher evaluation on an extra-schedular
basis. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (cited to in the October
2004 SSOC). In this regard, the Board notes that the
disability is not objectively shown to markedly interfere
with employment (i.e., beyond that contemplated in the
assigned rating). The January 2003 private psychiatrist
evaluating the veteran has opined that the veteran was
"totally disabled" due to his psychiatric condition,
although this psychiatrist did not express any actual
findings regarding the effect of the veteran's PTSD upon
employability. SSA disability records also document that the
veteran is receiving disability compensation for an anxiety
disorder as well as an affective (mood) disorder, but do not
specifically relate his disability compensation to PTSD.
Moreover, the VA psychiatrist who provided the September 2003
medical opinion, based on a review of the medical evidence of
record at that time (including the private treatment and SSA
records), determined that the veteran's primary impediment in
working appeared to be his alcohol abuse and dependence, not
PTSD, and further, that the veteran could likely return to
work if he could obtain control over his alcohol dependence.
Aside from the question of employability, the veteran's
service-connected PTSD has also not been shown to warrant
frequent periods of hospitalization, or to otherwise render
impractical the application of the regular schedular
standards. In the absence of evidence of any of the factors
outlined above, the criteria for invoking the procedures set
forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) are not met. See Bagwell v.
Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337, 338-9 (1996); Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet.
App. 88, 96 (1996); Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 218, 227
(1995).
Under these circumstances, the Board must conclude that
staged rating, pursuant to Fenderson, is not warranted, and
that the claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 30
percent for PTSD must be denied. In reaching this
conclusion, the Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt
doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is
against the veteran's claim, that doctrine is not applicable
in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990).
ORDER
An initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for PTSD is
denied.
____________________________________________
JACQUELINE E. MONROE
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Department of Veterans Affairs


This application is based upon Japanese Patent Application No. 2000-387622 filed on Dec. 20, 2000, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a semiconductor sensor, for example, an acceleration sensor or an angular velocity sensor that employs a structure movable in accordance with physical quantity applied thereto, and manufacturing method of the same.
2. Related Art
Recently, a semiconductor sensor that detects dynamic quantity such as acceleration or pressure can be provided by micro-machining process in which a laminated substrate such as a SOI (Silicon On Insulator) substrate is employed. FIG. 6 shows a schematic cross sectional view of a semiconductor dynamic quantity sensor 100. The semiconductor dynamic quantity sensor 100 has a laminated substrate 110 that is composed of a first semiconductor substrate 111 and a second semiconductor substrate 112 to support the first semiconductor substrate 111 with an oxide film 113 interposed therebetween. A structural portion is formed in the first semiconductor substrate 111.
The oxide film 113 and the second semiconductor substrate are partially removed at a region corresponding to the structure 101. As a result, the structure 101 forms a diaphragm shape. Incidentally, the structure 101 may form a one-end supporting beam structure (hereinafter, cantilevered beam structure) in accordance with a sensor structure.
The semiconductor dynamic quantity sensor 100 is formed with the following steps. First, the laminated substrate 110 is prepared. Then, a circuit or the like is formed on the first semiconductor substrate 111. After that, the second semiconductor substrate is partially removed by etching to form an opening 102. Moreover, the oxide film is removed at a portion corresponding to the opening 102 so as to form the structure 101 in the first substrate 111 on the opening 102.
It is easy to make the structure 101 having very fine and narrow gap by employing the oxide film 103 as a sacrificial layer in the laminated substrate 110, which is removed by etching in the process to form the minute structure 101, and to control thickness of the structure 101 when employing the laminated substrate.
When dynamic quantity is applied to the semiconductor dynamic quantity sensor 100, the structure having the diaphragm structure or the cantilevered beam structure is slightly deformed or displaced, so that the dynamic quantity can be detected. Recently, high accuracy in detection is required in the semiconductor dynamic quantity sensor 100.
It is, however, difficult to obtain the high accuracy in the semiconductor dynamic quantity sensor 100. FIG. 7 shows a schematic cross sectional view of a semiconductor dynamic quantity sensor 100 having a cantilevered beam structure. The structure 101 cambers to a direction opposite to the opening 102.
In the acceleration sensor, acceleration applied to the sensor is detected by detecting change in capacitance based on change in distance between a movable electrode and a fixed electrode as the cantilevered beam structure. Therefore, when the structure 101 cambers, it is difficult to face the movable electrode to the fixed electrode appropriately. As a result, it is difficult to detect the acceleration precisely.
This invention has been conceived in view of the background as described above and an object of the invention is to provide a semiconductor sensor capable of detecting dynamic quantity precisely.
The inventors in the present invention found a fact that the structure 101 formed in the first semiconductor substrate 111 cambers by a stress layer 114 formed on a surface (back surface) of substrate 111 that faces the opening 102.
It is supposed that the stress layer 114 is formed at a surface portion of the first substrate 111 adhering to the oxide film 113 by diffusion of oxygen when adhering the first substrate 111 to the second substrate 112 through the oxide film. The oxygen diffused in the first substrate is supposed to cause lattice stress.
This stress layer causes deterioration in detection in the pressure sensor as well as the acceleration sensor.
The inventors measured amount of camber in the structure 101 having the cantilevered beam as a sample of the semiconductor dynamic quantity sensor after removing the back surface of the structure 101. The sensor structure is shown in FIG. 7. Beam length L is 5.2 mm, thickness S of the first substrate 111 is 15 xcexcm. In this situation, the amount of camber xcex4 is measured when etching amount in the back surface of the structure 101 is changed. The amount of camber xcex4 is defined with distance between a surface of the first substrate 111 and a top of the cambered structure 101.
FIG. 5 shows a result of measurement of the camber. The amount of camber is reduced when the back surf ace of the structure 101 is etched by 0.2 xcexcm. Moreover, the amount of camber is reduced as the etching amount is increased. When the etching amount is 0.4 xcexcm or more, the amount of camber is reduced prominently as shown in FIG. 5.
After the first substrate 111 is adhered to the oxide film 113, the oxide film is removed and oxygen concentration is measured while the first substrate 111 is etched gradually from the back surface that adhered to the oxide film 113 to convince that the stress layer 114 is formed by the oxygen in the oxide film 113.
As a result, the oxygen concentration is highest at the back surface that adhered to the oxide film. Moreover, the oxygen concentration is reduced as the first substrate 111 is etched. Besides, dependency in the oxygen concentration with respect to the etching amount is similar to dependency in camber with respect to the etching amount shown in FIG. 5. Therefore, the stress layer 114 including oxygen in the first substrate 111 should be removed so that the camber is reduced sufficiently.
According to a first aspect of the invention, a semiconductor sensor has a structure formed in a first substrate that is formed on a second substrate with an oxide film interposed therebetween. The oxide film under the structure is removed. Besides, a part of the structure is removed at a portion that adheres to the oxide film before the oxide film is removed. The removed portion of the structure includes oxygen at high concentration in comparison with the bulk of the first substrate.
Preferably, a thickness of removed portion of the structure is 0.2 xcexcm or more to improve sensitivity of the sensor.
More preferably, the thickness of removed portion of the structure is 0.4 xcexcm or more.
Other features and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent from the following detailed description made with reference to the accompanying drawings.


Insights into the translational regulation of biologically active open reading frames of Pelargonium line pattern virus.
Pelargonium line pattern virus (PLPV), a proposed member of a prospective genus (Pelarspovirus) within family Tombusviridae, has a positive-sense, single-stranded genomic RNA. According to previous predictions, it contains six open reading frames (ORFs) potentially encoding proteins of 27 (p27), 13 (p13), 87 (p87), 7 (p7), 6 (p6), and 37 kDa (p37). Using a variety of techniques we demonstrate that all predicted ORFs are functional, with the exception of (p13) and (p6). We also characterize a previously unidentified ORF which encodes a 9.7 kDa protein (p9.7) that is essential for viral movement. Furthermore, we present evidence that the single subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) produced by the virus directs synthesis of p7, p9.7 and p37. Remarkably, the translation of these totally unrelated proteins is coordinated via leaky-scanning. This mechanism seems to be favoured by the poor translation context of the start codon of ORF(p7), the non-AUG weak initiation codon of ORF(p9.7) and the lack of additional AUG codons in any reading frame preceding ORF(p37). The results also suggest that precise regulation of protein production from the sgRNA is critical for virus viability. Altogether, the data supports the notion that PLPV belongs to a new genus of plant viruses.


Amino acids reduce inflammation and carry toxins on the surface for this skin, intestinal tract, Thrive Hemp Oil Review Hemp Oil kidneys and lungs where these people be expelled by entire body. They also reduce cholesterol levels and low blood pressure. In addition to containing every single one of amino acids, they have essential fat as great.

What were the cons of smoking weed? What made hunt for to steer clear of? Was it quite hard? How did it start to interfere near your existence? Did it get started with as a item you probably did on occasion and escalate into a day to day thing? an individual recomend want you to.

There are numerous methods of growing Cannabis but we will only talk using soil here, as this may be a beginners short training. Hydroponic growing will be a subject matter of probably ? tutorial.

Evert believes the real inventors in the vaporizer were the ancients from Afghanistan, who used hot coals in their pipes. According to him he stole the 3 holes system and the three chamber-cooling bowl from Afghanistan.

Getting protein through hemp seeds is often a great technique to stave off hunger, curb your cravings for sweets and get the maximum energy range. All of the nutrients in the seeds help your body stay balanced and full nourished. Achievable eat Thrive Hemp CBD Oil seeds together with handful, sprinkle them on salads or soups or use hemp seed oil for cookery.

Rick Cusick, Associate Publisher and a prominent writer at High Times will be the keynote client. He'll bring copies of High Times Magazine including brand Thrive Hemp Oil new Medical Marijuana quarterly, special signed copies of books and other things to auction as a benefit for PhillyNORML.

Nearly three-quarters of muscles is made of protein. Your bodily protein is maintained and repaired by protein subunits. Although your body produces most necessary amino acids, happen to be nine that your body cannot make. Arginine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenlalanine, thereonine, tryptophan, valine and taurine have to be supplemented using your diet. May eat a large combination of foods to get your essential amino fatty acids.or you could just eat hemp signs.


NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal
revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter
of Decisions by email at: JUD.Reporter@vermont.gov or by mail at: Vermont Supreme Court, 109
State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801, of any errors in order that corrections may be made
before this opinion goes to press.

                                           2018 VT 66

                                          No. 2017-364

Jason Lillie                                                   Supreme Court

                                                               On Appeal from
   v.                                                          Employment Security Board

Department of Labor                                            April Term, 2018

Michael Harrington, Chair

Jason R. Lillie, Pro Se, Bennington, Plaintiff-Appellant.

Dirk Anderson, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Skoglund, Robinson, Eaton and Carroll, JJ.

        ¶ 1.   EATON, J. Jason Lillie appeals the Employment Security Board’s denial of his

claim for unemployment benefits. We affirm.

        ¶ 2.   In July 2014, Lillie was an employee of Amerigas Propane, Inc. and suffered an

injury while working. He reported the injury to his employer, which in turn reported it to its

worker’s compensation insurer. He sought medical attention for his injury shortly after being hurt

but was able to continue working for several weeks, most of it on modified or light duty. The

record is unclear whether the compensation insurer paid for the medical treatment initially. In

October, Amerigas fired Lillie for an alleged safety violation. A few days later, Lillie’s doctor

indicated he was medically unable to work. Lillie expressed concern that he was ineligible for

unemployment benefits because he was not able to work but was told he must apply in order to

receive economic benefits.
       ¶ 3.    Lillie then sought workers’ compensation temporary disability benefits, which were

initially denied by the insurer. Without any income or compensation disability benefits for several

weeks, Lillie sought economic assistance from the Vermont Economic Services Division of the

Department for Children and Families. Lillie was told by Economic Services that in order to be

eligible for economic assistance he would have to file for unemployment benefits, even if he felt

he would not qualify for them.

       ¶ 4.    With his workers’ compensation claim still in dispute, and based upon the

information he had received from Economic Services, Lillie filed a claim for unemployment

benefits with the Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor on December 1,

2014. The filing of a claim for benefits triggers the establishment of a benefit year. 21 V.S.A. §

1338(d)(1)(C). The claim also triggers a determination of whether the claimant is monetarily

eligible for benefits for the benefit year using one of four statutory methods to establish a base

period, which we recently explained in Skidmore v. Department of Labor, 2017 VT 65, ¶ 10, __

Vt. __, 172 A.3d 1210. Unless a claimant has earned sufficient wages during a “base period,”

using one of the statutory methods to calculate it, the claimant is not monetarily eligible to receive

unemployment benefits.

       ¶ 5.    Applying the statutory formula to calculate the base period as set forth in 21 V.S.A.

§ 1301(17)(B) and using the wages Lillie had earned at Amerigas between July 1, 2013 and the

end of June 2014, the Unemployment Division found him to be monetarily eligible for

unemployment benefits when he sought them in December 2014. Monetary eligibility is merely

the first step in determining whether a claimant is entitled to unemployment benefits. If a claimant

satisfies the monetary eligibility criteria, there are other requirements that must be met as

conditions to the receipt of unemployment benefits. These are set forth in 21 V.S.A. § 1343.

       ¶ 6.    One of the conditions in 21 V.S.A. § 1343 is a requirement that a claimant be able

to work and available for work in order to receive unemployment benefits. 21 V.S.A. § 1343(a)(3).

While he had the necessary base period wages to make him monetarily eligible for benefits, Lillie
                                               2
was not able to work and available for work, as required by 21 V.S.A. § 1343(a)(3), because he

was medically unable to work. He was, therefore, denied unemployment compensation on that

basis. He continued to make weekly claims for unemployment benefits for six weeks after

December 2014 while his workers’ compensation benefits were in dispute. Each claim was denied

because he was not able and available to work.

       ¶ 7.    In March 2015, Lillie’s workers’ compensation claim was accepted and temporary

disability benefits were paid to him; the payments were retroactive to the time he left work in

October 2014. Lillie ceased making claims for unemployment benefits and continued to receive

temporary total disability benefits until he reached a medical end result in early 2017. At the end

of his temporary total disability, and because he was then able and available to work, Lillie filed

another claim for unemployment benefits on May 18, 2017.

       ¶ 8.    When a worker reaches the end of temporary total workers’ compensation benefits

and seeks unemployment benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Division usually determines his

or her monetary eligibility for unemployment benefits using “Method Four” pursuant to 21 V.S.A.

§ 1343(d), which allows eligibility for unemployment benefits to be calculated based on the

employee’s wages earned in the period prior to leaving employment due to injury. Here, Method

Four could not be used because Lillie’s pre-disability wages had already been used to meet his

monetary eligibility requirement for the unsuccessful unemployment claims Lillie had filed

beginning in December 2014, which had established a benefit year for those claims even though

he did not get any unemployment benefits at that time for other reasons. Id. § 1301(16)(A). As a

result, Lillie was required by statute to earn four times his previously weekly benefit subsequent

to his most recent benefit year in order to be monetarily eligible for benefits in a new benefit year.

Id. § 1338(d)(1)(C). Accordingly, Lillie was found to be monetarily ineligible for benefits because

he did not earn any wages subsequent to the prior benefit year he had established in 2014. Lillie

appealed the denial of benefits by the claims handler to the appeals referee, who affirmed the

                                                  3
decision. Lillie then appealed to the Employment Security Division, which also affirmed the

denial based upon monetary ineligibility. This appeal followed.

       ¶ 9.    Lillie challenges the most recent denial of benefits by the Unemployment Division,

caused solely by the unsuccessful filing of unemployment claims at an earlier time.             The

unemployment statutes contemplate that an injured worker might not be able to find a job at the

time his or her temporary total workers’ compensation benefits end. Accordingly, Method Four

delineates the process for calculating the base period for monetary eligibility in those cases. Id.

§ 1343(d). Method Four enables the injured worker to meet monetary eligibility requirements

following a period of temporary disability by using the pre-disability wages. In this case, however,

the Unemployment Division had already used those wages in the calculation of monetary

eligibility for the 2014 benefit year. The impact of those weekly unemployment benefit claims in

2014 was to establish a benefit year, triggering the determination of monetary eligibility through

the establishment of a base period. The wages Lillie earned prior to his disability from injury were

used to satisfy this requirement. The unemployment benefits statutes, as the appeals referee found,

expressly prohibit the reuse of wages used to meet a base period requirement for a prior benefit

year. Id. § 1301(17)(D). Had Lillie not made the unemployment claims in 2014, his pre-disability

wages would have been available to meet Method Four’s monetary eligibility requirements,

pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 1343(d), for the 2017 claims. Because those wages had been used in

connection with the earlier benefit year, they could not be used again for the 2017 unemployment

claim. To establish monetary eligibility for a new benefit year, Lillie would have to establish that

he had weekly earnings in the amount required by statute subsequent to his previous benefit year.

Id. § 1338(d)(1). Because he had no subsequent earnings, Lillie could not meet the statutory

requirement. The Employment Security Division’s affirmance of the appeals referee’s denial of

benefits was correct.

       ¶ 10.   With respect to the handling of the multiple weekly claims for unemployment

benefits in 2014 and 2015, and the single claim in 2017, Lillie has not shown any error on the part
                                                 4
of the Unemployment Division in the handling of any of the claims. The record does not show

that the Unemployment Division was asked for, or gave, any explanation of the potential impact

Lillie’s 2014 claims would have on a later claim if he did not return to work in the interim. The

Unemployment Division applied the law properly, and we are not at liberty to rewrite the

applicable statutes to obtain a different outcome.

       ¶ 11.   At the same time, Lillie’s considerable frustration at being crushed between two

boxcars of government bureaucracy is understandable. The record does not demonstrate that any

information provided by Economic Services concerning his need to apply for unemployment

benefits to qualify for economic assistance was incorrect.1 But it seems unlikely that Lillie

understood that the resulting impact of asserting weekly claims for unemployment benefits at a

time when he knew he was unable to work would be to disqualify Lillie for unemployment benefits

at a later time. At the very least, it is unreasonable to expect someone unfamiliar with these

programs to successfully negotiate the myriad of requirements involved in the interplay between

workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment benefits, and assistance through Economic

Services. We doubt that Lillie is the first injured worker to seek unemployment benefits in order

to qualify for assistance through Economic Services. We also doubt that he will be the last.

       ¶ 12.   In the past we have been critical of the Department of Labor for not providing

sufficient guidance to claimants that filing for unemployment benefits may trigger a benefit year.

Skidmore, 2017 VT 65, ¶ 9 n.4. This case is somewhat different than Skidmore because, unlike

in that case, Lillie knew he was filing a claim for unemployment benefits in December 2014.

Whether additional guidance by Economic Services before advising him to apply for

unemployment benefits or by the Unemployment Division at the time Lillie first called to make an

unemployment claim would have made any difference here is speculative. At a minimum,

       1
         The record does not indicate whether the requirement that Lillie apply for unemployment
benefits was compelled by statute or regulation versus a policy judgment by the Division in
administering its programs. Nor is there any indication that the requirement was wrongly imposed.
                                                 5
however, coordination of the important information between the Unemployment Division and

Economic Services concerning monetary eligibility, the establishment of a benefit year, and the

use of wages prior to disability in connection therewith in the case of a worker injured on the job

may have avoided this quagmire. Following the advice given by Economic Services, which we

do not doubt was provided in good faith to Lillie, resulted in the unintended consequence of his

loss of unemployment benefits once he regained his ability to work in 2017.

        ¶ 13.   It is not too much to ask that a benefit claimant be fully informed of the

consequences that one claim for benefits has on other very foreseeable benefit claims in the case

of a worker injured on the job. In the worst case, it would be far better that an injured worker

receives that information twice, rather than not at all, as apparently was the unfortunate case here.

Furthermore, a protocol requiring communication between agencies that are both working with a

client seeking economic assistance would likely be of assistance in resolving the confusion, such

as existed in this case.2

        Affirmed.

                                                FOR THE COURT:

                                                Associate Justice

        2
          At oral argument, counsel for the Department of Labor indicated the Department was
planning to contact the Economic Services Division to discuss protocols for situations such as this
one. We applaud that effort.
                                               6


Railway Tie Association (RTA) Procurement Trends Dashboard below represents the monthly opinions of "in-the field" wood tie buyers who procure untreated crossties from sawmills in their specific regions. The data is submitted to RTA within the first two weeks of the month following the reporting period covered. The output is in two forms - monthly and a 12-month running view (which started in July 2016). You can choose individual regions or grouped regions from the dropdown menus above for both the monthly and trend data. All the charts on the page will change based on your dropdown selections.

Since the information provided represents a snapshot-in-time-opinion of individuals, each working for a variety of tie procurement companies, RTA does not warrant nor accept responsibility for the accuracy of the data generated. For questions or feedback please email us. ® 2016 Railway Tie Association.

1. Compared to last month, the quantity of logs on hand at mill yards is:

Scroll on graph to zoom in

2. Today's log availability is:

Scroll on graph to zoom in

3. The 6-12 outlook for log availability is:

Scroll on graph to zoom in

4. Compared to last month, the overall demand for competitive products in your territory is:

Scroll on graph to zoom in

5. In your territory, what is the current demand for:

Pallet Lumber

Scroll on graph to zoom in

Paper (Chips)

Scroll on graph to zoom in

Lumber (#2 & #3)

Scroll on graph to zoom in

Export

Scroll on graph to zoom in

Board/Mat Timbers

Scroll on graph to zoom in

6. What is your current view of overall hardwood sawmill production?

Scroll on graph to zoom in

7. What is your current view of overall crosstie sawmill products?

Current

Scroll on graph to zoom in

Future

Scroll on graph to zoom in

8. What is your view of crosstie competitive position relative to other hardwood products?


Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon believes that former Vice President Joe Biden has been “totally compromised by China.”

When asked by Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade what he thought about Joe Biden and his son Hunter taking money from Ukraine energy company Burisma Holdings, Bannon said “I think it’s corruption.”

“I think worse is China. They took over a billion dollars from China,” Bannon said Monday. “I think Joe Biden is totally compromised by China. I think people understand it. I think the Ukraine situation’s the same thing.”

Steve Bannon: Joe Biden is compromised by China pic.twitter.com/1iEAhWPDBl — Wojciech Pawelczyk 🇵🇱🇺🇸 (@PolishPatriotTM) October 28, 2019

“[Hunter Biden] got in the Navy with no expertise because of Joe Biden,” Bannon continued. “He got on the board because of connections to Joe Biden. His whole career is around having access to Joe Biden – political corruption.”

In response to the growing backlash over his connections to China and his father’s faltering poll numbers, Hunter Biden released a statement announcing he would be step down from Bohai Harvest RST (BHR) Equity Investment Fund Management Company, a Shanghai-based private-equity fund backed by entities owned by the Chinese government.

“Hunter always understood that his father would be guided, entirely and unequivocally, by established U.S. policy, regardless of its effects on Hunter’s professional interests,” according to the statement. “He never anticipated the barrage of false charges against both him and his father by the President of the United States.”

In 2013, Hunter Biden joined an official U.S. delegation to China, according to multiple reports. Ten days later, his private equity firm Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC. inked a $1 billion deal with the bank of China, that was eventually increased to $1.5 billion.

The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!


Omethoate induces pharyngeal cancer cell proliferation and G1/S cell cycle progression by activation of Akt/GSK-3β/cyclin D1 signaling pathway.
Omethoate is a broad category of organophosphorous pesticides (OPs) and has toxic effects on human health under long-term, low-dose exposure. However, the role of omethoate in cancer development remains elusive. The incidence of global head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) has markedly increased in recent years. Thus, we examined whether omethoate induced the proliferation of FaDu cells (a cell line of HNSCC) and if so, what the underlying mechanism was. The study revealed that omethoate induced FaDu cell growth in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Omethoate stimulated FaDu cell proliferation was mainly due to enhancing the G1 to S phase transition by flow cytometry analysis. We also found that omethoate up-regulated cyclin D1, a key gene controlling the G1-S transition. Furthermore, we showed that omethoate was capable of activating the Akt/GSK-3β signaling pathway. Blockage of Akt by siRNA or small molecule inhibitor significantly suppressed omethoate-induced cyclin D1 expression and cell proliferation. Collectively, these findings demonstrated for the first time that omethoate could induce the pharyngeal cancer cell proliferation by activation of the Akt/GSK-3β/cyclin D1 signaling pathway.


A deal that would send beleaguered Manchester City striker Mario Balotelli back to Italy -- either to AC Milan or Juventus -- is in the works and could be completed before the Thursday transfer window deadline, according to reports.


Q:

using shared preferences to store data inside a service?

I have tried using the following code but i am getting errors. getSharedPreferences is undefined. Is there is other way to store string value in Intent services and access it inside an activity.
      SharedPreferences prefs = this.getSharedPreferences(
  "com.example.app", Context.MODE_PRIVATE);

A:

try this :
SharedPreferences prefs = getApplicationContext().getSharedPreferences(
  "com.example.app", Context.MODE_PRIVATE);

instead of
SharedPreferences prefs = this.getSharedPreferences(
  "com.example.app", Context.MODE_PRIVATE);


TWIN HOUSES IN KOSANIN DOL

The twins are semi-detached identical houses which share one roof and garden. What is the link between the courtyard and the main living space?[VD12] The roof eaves are extended towards south and north in order to shelter parking lots and a fireplace. The favorable south exposure gives opportunity for positioning of photovoltaic panels.


Illumination of therapeutics by toxicology: a personal view.
1. My specialties are therapeutics and toxicology. When we think in classical terms about drugs, therapeutics refers to curative healing, toxicology to the capacity to produce harm. However, they are not opposite disciplines, but rather reflect a continuum along the dose-response curve of a drug or toxin. Since antiquity, the study of toxicology has underpinned and illuminated therapeutics. Even the most potent toxins, such as botulinum and ricin, are used for therapeutic purposes. 2. In the case of one of my favourite research topics, the herbicide paraquat, I illustrate how investigating methods to treat patients poisoned by it has led to important advances in knowledge in medicine and therapeutics. Studying paraquat has launched my own research group on a path towards elucidating the mechanisms of the chronic neurological side effects of the antipsychotic drug, haloperidol, which is used widely to treat schizophrenia. In tracing these tortuous paths, the roles that serendipity and creativity play in research and their implications for education and funding policies are high-lighted.


Q:

.on Event Listener not working

Why this code not working!?
html
    <!DOCTYPE html>

    <title>Ending Project</title>

    <input type="button" value="Click">

Changing

the javascript code:
    $("input").on("click" , function(){
    $("h1").css("background-color" , "black");
});

I trying to change the background color when i click the button
but it not working and I am doing it like the documentation say!

A:

From my point of view it has 2 options, I do not know which one is the best.
First, as it says "dfsq" put your code inside a   function
<input type="button" value="Click">

Changing

or second create a function and call it from the input
<input type="button" onclick="changeColor()" value="Click">

Changing


A Beautiful DreamLet us dream together a dream worth dreaming, celebrating unity in diversity and respect for all human life, for we are sharers in the gift of life and this beautiful planet. Our different traits, talents, and perspectives--for we're each fully understood by the one who created us in love--make the world richer and more complete. Why should we hesitate to express support for a group that's persecuted, for fear "our other friends" will judge us out of their company or we'll be mistaken for the persecuted class? I need to consider it joy when I encounter hostility for the sake of kindness and inclusion, the full-heart attitude that makes it possible to share Christ's love. Although I doubt I'll be told I shouldn't have bought a #OrlandoUnited t-shirt, talk about it here, or wear it in public, and although that small step takes little courage, I wouldn't be walking what I believe if I didn't say yes now, and whatever comes next, let me listen to the urging of love in my spirit, more than


Q:

Llamar a un formulario wpf contenido en una dll

Mi pregunta es muy concreta. Digamos que tengo un ensamblado c# y que quiero que mis interfaces del ensamblado sean xaml. Como puedo crearme formularios wpf y llamarlos dentro del ensamblado sin estar dentro del ensamblado ejecutable que monta un proyecto wpf y que ya viene predefinido el inicio por app.xaml.
Hablando de Form simplemente nos creamos un formulario, instanciamos y lo llamamos con show. ¿Como puedo hacer lo mismo con WPF?

A:

Si te refieres a mostar una ventana de tipo System.Windows.Window que esta contenida en una dll, puedes lograrlo con reflection.
Primero tienes que cargar la dll que tu formulario utilizando Assembly.LoadFrom(). Este metodo recibe la ruta de la dll y retorna un objeto de tipo Assembly:
System.Reflection.Assembly assembly = System.Reflection.Assembly.LoadFrom("ruta_dll.dll");

Luego buscas la clase que sea de tipo Window utilizando el metodo Assembly#GetTypes():
var windowsType = typeof(System.Windows.Window);
assembly.GetTypes().Where(type=> type == windowType);

Como ya tienes todas la clase que son de tipo Window que representa los formulario, solo te quedaria inicializar las instanicas de lo mismos utilizando el metodo Activator.CreateInstance():
var windowInstances = windowsType.Select(x=> Activator.CreateInstance(x) as System.Windows.Window);

Entonces para mostralo solo tendrias que ejecutar el metodo Window#Show():
windowInstances.FirstOrDefault()?.Show();

Nota que utilizo FirstOrDefault() ya que se entiende que en la libreria solo tendrias una clase que hereda de System.Windows.Window. Si tienes varias, tendras que inventar un mecanismo para mostrar solo el formulario que deseas.
Aqui el codigo completo:
var windowsType = typeof(System.Windows.Window);

var windowInstances = System.Reflection.Assembly.LoadFrom("ruta_dll.dll")
                .GetTypes()
                .Where(type=> type == windowType)
                .Select(Activator.CreateInstance);

windowInstances.FirstOrDefault()?.Show();


The changing management role: autocratic doer to team facilitator.
The changing health care environment has challenged nurse managers to change their way of "doing business." Traditionally, nurse managers have used autocratic methods to control staff. That approach no longer provides the tools needed to survive the changes that managers are faced with daily. The nurse manager must be able to motivate and involve staff. The characteristics needed in the changing world of management include allowing staff to make decisions and providing them with the support and facilitation to grow. This article describes the evolution of nurse management from autocratic doer to team facilitator.


Bob -- Having read through his notes from the CEA negotiations, Ken now
agrees that this was the intent of Congress.   Ken continues to believe that
there is "zero interest" in Congress in fixing this problem (I would ask
Chris to confirm this).   Therefore, you are right -- the rulemaking process
will be critical.

I suggest a short conference call (with or without Ken) this week to discuss
our strategy.   If we want Ken to join us, he's available Tues and Thurs.   I
think it would be helpful for Ken to participate.

Lisa

	Robert Bruce
	Sent by: Robert Bruce
	01/26/2001 12:35 PM

		 To: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Chris Long/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Speech by CFTC's Paul Archietzel

I just got off the phone with Bill Nissen.  He is at an ABA seminar at which
Paul Archietzel spoke today.  Mr. Archietzel is with the CFTC's Division of
Economic Analysis and (Bill believes) is very involved in rule drafting and
promulgation.

According to Bill, Mr. Archietzel stated in his speech that he believes it
was no accident that Congress referred to "agricultural commodities" (rather
than the enumerated grains and meats) in the CFMA when establishing which
commodities will continue to be subject to full regulation.  Mr. Archietzel
also expressly stated that there is at least a possibility that pulp and
paper would be considered "agricultural commodities" as used in the CFMA.

Obviously, then, the upcoming rulemaking process could be of critical
importance to our pulp and paper business as well as our agriculture
business. We will clearly need to monitor the process very closely, and
strongly consider getting involved in the comment process.

Robert E. Bruce
Senior Counsel
Enron North America Corp.
T (713) 345-7780
F (713) 646-3393
robert.bruce@enron.com


Q:

Ajax Accessing a multidimensional array returned from PHP in JSON

I am using an  ajax get method to return some information from my database. The ajax method sends whichever category has been selected to a php script which fetches all the rows in my products table and adds these rows to a  variable called $arr. $arr is a multidimensional array containing each item and the details of that item.
I am really struggling with trying to access this information once it is returned to the ajax success function. Here is my ajax function with the  alerts I have tried to use to see the data contained in the 'data'  object:
$('.category').click(function() {

    var category;

    if ($(this).hasClass('Shirts')) {
        category = 'shirts';
    }
    if ($(this).hasClass('Hats')) {
        category = 'hats';
    }
    if ($(this).hasClass('Acc')) {
        category = 'acc';
    }

    $.ajax({
        type: 'GET',
        url: 'galleryfetch.php',
        data: { 'category' : category },
        dataType: 'json',
        success:  function(data) {

            // alert(data);  Alerts '[object Object]'
            // alert(data[0]); Alerts 'undefined'
            // alert(data[0].ID); Console Error: Cannot read property 'ID' of undefined
            // alert(data.array[0].ID); Console Error: Cannot read property 'ID' of undefined
        }
    });
});

The function finds out which category has been clicked and then sends that to the galleryfetch.php script that grabs all the rows from the database with that category and returns them in JSON format as shown below:

if ($_SERVER['REQUEST_METHOD'] == 'GET') {

    $category = $_GET['category'];

    $conn = mysqli_connect('localhost', 'root', 'Chan&', 'clothing');

    $rows = mysqli_query($conn, "SELECT * FROM products WHERE category = '".$category."'");

    while ($row = mysqli_fetch_array($rows)) {

        $arr[] = $row;
    }

    echo json_encode(array('data' => $arr));
}

If I use Firebug to debug the code I can see that the right data is definitely contained in the 'data' object:

How can I access this data?

A:

Based on the image posted, you're receiving an array called data, that consists of 4 objects. The problem is that inside of each of these objects you're messing numeric indices and assoc indices. I would try this:
success:  function(data) {

   // accessing all the properties
   for(var x in data["data"]) {
      for(var y in data["data"][x]) {
         if (y=="ID") {
            alert( "ID of "+x+" is: "+data["data"][x][y] );
         }
      }
   }

   // or simply
   alert( data["data"][0]["ID"] );

}


/*******************************************************************************
 * * Copyright 2012 Impetus Infotech.
 *  *
 *  * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
 *  * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
 *  * You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *  *
 *  *      http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *  *
 *  * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 *  * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 *  * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 *  * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 *  * limitations under the License.
 ******************************************************************************/
package com.impetus.kundera.polyglot.tests;

import java.util.List;

import junit.framework.Assert;

import org.junit.After;
import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;

import com.impetus.kundera.polyglot.entities.AddressU11FK;
import com.impetus.kundera.polyglot.entities.PersonU11FK;

/**

 */
public class OOUPolyglotTest extends PersonAddressTestBase
{
    /**
     * Sets the up.
     *
     * @throws Exception
     *             the exception
     */
    @Before
    public void setUp() throws Exception
    {
        super.init();
    }

    /**
     * Test CRUD
     */
    @Test
    public void testCRUD()
    {
       executeAllTests();
    }

    protected void insert()
    {
        try
        {
            PersonU11FK person = new PersonU11FK();
            AddressU11FK address = new AddressU11FK();
            person.setPersonId("unionetoonefk_1");
            person.setPersonName("Amresh");
            address.setAddressId("unionetoonefk_a");
            address.setStreet("123, New street");
            person.setAddress(address);
            dao.insert(person);
        }
        catch (Exception e)
        {

            Assert.fail();
        }
    }

    protected void find()
    {
        // Find Person
        try
        {
            PersonU11FK p = (PersonU11FK) dao.findPerson(PersonU11FK.class, "unionetoonefk_1");
            assertPersonBeforeUpdate(p);
        }
        catch (Exception e)
        {

            Assert.fail();
        }
    }

    @Override
    protected void findPersonByIdColumn()
    {
        PersonU11FK p = (PersonU11FK) dao.findPersonByIdColumn(PersonU11FK.class,
                "unionetoonefk_1");
        assertPersonBeforeUpdate(p);
    }

    @Override
    protected void findPersonByName()
    {
        List<PersonU11FK> persons = dao.findPersonByName(PersonU11FK.class, "Amresh");
        assertPersons(persons);
    }

    @Override
    protected void findAddressByIdColumn()
    {
        AddressU11FK a = (AddressU11FK) dao.findAddressByIdColumn(AddressU11FK.class, "unionetoonefk_a");
        assertAddressBeforeUpdate(a);
    }

    @Override
    protected void findAddressByStreet()
    {
        List<AddressU11FK> adds = dao.findAddressByStreet(AddressU11FK.class, "123, New street");
        Assert.assertNotNull(adds);
        Assert.assertFalse(adds.isEmpty());
        Assert.assertTrue(adds.size() == 1);

        assertAddressBeforeUpdate(adds.get(0));
    }

    protected void update()
    {
        try
        {
            PersonU11FK p = (PersonU11FK) dao.findPerson(PersonU11FK.class, "unionetoonefk_1");
            Assert.assertNotNull(p);
            p.setPersonName("Saurabh");
            AddressU11FK address = p.getAddress();
            address.setStreet("Brand New Street");
            p.setAddress(address);
            dao.merge(p);

            PersonU11FK pAfterMerge = (PersonU11FK) dao.findPerson(PersonU11FK.class,
                    "unionetoonefk_1");
            assertPersonAfterUpdate(pAfterMerge);
        }
        catch (Exception e)
        {

            Assert.fail();
        }
    }

    protected void remove()
    {
        try
        {
            PersonU11FK p = (PersonU11FK) dao.findPerson(PersonU11FK.class, "unionetoonefk_1");
            Assert.assertNotNull(p);
            dao.remove("unionetoonefk_1", PersonU11FK.class);

            PersonU11FK pAfterRemoval = (PersonU11FK) dao.findPerson(PersonU11FK.class,
                    "unionetoonefk_1");
            Assert.assertNull(pAfterRemoval);
        }
        catch (Exception e)
        {

            Assert.fail();
        }
    }

    /**
     * Tear down.
     *
     * @throws Exception
     *             the exception
     */
    @After
    public void tearDown() throws Exception
    {
        super.close();
    }

    /**
     * @param p
     */
    private void assertPersonBeforeUpdate(PersonU11FK p)
    {
        Assert.assertNotNull(p);

        Assert.assertEquals("unionetoonefk_1", p.getPersonId());
        Assert.assertEquals("Amresh", p.getPersonName());

        assertAddressBeforeUpdate(p.getAddress());
    }

    /**
     * @param p
     */
    private void assertAddressBeforeUpdate(AddressU11FK add)
    {
        Assert.assertNotNull(add);

        String addressId = add.getAddressId();
        String street = add.getStreet();

        Assert.assertNotNull(addressId);
        Assert.assertEquals("unionetoonefk_a", addressId);
        Assert.assertEquals("123, New street", street);
    }

    /**
     * @param pAfterMerge
     */
    private void assertPersonAfterUpdate(PersonU11FK pAfterMerge)
    {
        Assert.assertNotNull(pAfterMerge);
        Assert.assertEquals("Saurabh", pAfterMerge.getPersonName());
        AddressU11FK addressAfterMerge = pAfterMerge.getAddress();
        Assert.assertNotNull(addressAfterMerge);
        Assert.assertEquals("Brand New Street", addressAfterMerge.getStreet());
    }

    /**
     * @param persons
     */
    private void assertPersons(List<PersonU11FK> persons)
    {
        Assert.assertNotNull(persons);
        Assert.assertFalse(persons.isEmpty());
        Assert.assertTrue(persons.size() == 1);
        PersonU11FK person = persons.get(0);
        assertPersonBeforeUpdate(person);
    }
}


Tigers heading back to the state of Illinois for a non-conference match-up.

Career (2003-2007): Capped her career with 1,071 points, which ranks 16th in Lady Tiger scoring history...Became the 18th Memphis player in school history to pass the 1,000 career point plateau with her first three of the game at East Carolina...Knocked down 178 of 193 career free-throws for 89.6 percent, the best career free-throw shooting clip in Lady Tiger history...Hit 180 three-point field goals over her four-year Lady Tiger career, which ranks second to only LaTonya Johnson's 207 in the record books...Her 550 career attempts from three-point range is a new school record and her 32.7 percent shooting clip from beyond the arc ranks her 12th in Memphis history...Played in 119 career games, which ties for fifth-most in Memphis history, and started 85 games...Played 3,192 career minutes, which is seventh in all of Lady Tiger history.

2006-07 (Senior): Voted to the Conference USA All-Academic Team by the league SIDs...Finished second on the team with 10.9 points per game, adding 2.8 rebounds per game....Scored 337 points on the season and with her first three of the game at East Carolina, became the 18th player in Memphis history to pass the 1,000-career point mark...Led Memphis with 64 shots made from three-point, which ties the single season school record established by LaTonya Johnson in 1995-96...Shot 34.8 percent from three-point range and 96.6 percent from the free-throw line...Her mark from the free-throw line is the best in Memphis single season history, breaking her own school record from last season...Named the Tournament MVP of the Lady Tiger Thanksgiving Classic...Finished fifth on the team with 31 steals and fifth with 34 assists...Scored double-digit points in 15 games, including a season-high 24 points at UAB, a game which saw her knock down six three-point field goals, just one away from tying the school record...Had a season-high seven rebounds against Tulane...Started 30 of 31 games her senior season...Named to the Tiger 3.0 Club following the fall semester.

2005-06 (Junior): Had her best season in a Lady Tiger uniform, averaging 14.4 ppg and being the lone Lady Tiger to start and play in all 28 games...Has now played in 88 career games, starting 55 of them...Struggled in the first four games of the season, not hitting double-digit scoring until knocking down a career-high 19 points in the win at Lipscomb...She shattered that career high one game later with 28 points at No. 12 Arizona State, adding 15 the following night against Holy Cross, a 2005 NCAA Tournament team, to earn an All-Tournament slot...Would again set a new career scoring mark with 29 points at UAB, falling just short of tying that with 28 points at UCF just four games later...Scored double digit points in 19 of the 28 games, and hit 20 or more points in five games...Had a career-high eight assists in the win over UT Martin while filling in at the point for an injured Tamika Butler...Had eight rebounds against UCF and six rebounds against Clemson, UT Martin and Southern Miss...Her 56 threes on the season ties for the second-best single season mark in Memphis history, tying Kitty Allen from the 1995-96 season...Her 189 threes attempted is a new single season record...Was fourth on the team with 36 steals and second with 47 assists...Set a school record with 24 consecutive free-throws made before missing her first try UAB...She shot 90.9 percent from the free-throw line on the season (60 of 66 attempts)...She became just the fifth Lady Tiger in Memphis history to hit 100 or more career threes and wraps her junior season with 734 career points...Her 396 points scored this season is 58 points more than she scored in her previous two seasons combined.

2004-05 (Sophomore): Played in all 29 games on the season, starting in 12...Was second on the team with 18 treys for the year, giving her 60 threes for her career, ranking seventh in career history heading into her junior season...Scored double-digits in five games, including back-to-back double-digit nights at the Fun in the Sun Shootout in Cancun where she hit 11 and a season-best 13 points...Hit 4-of-7 shots from three-point range against Oral Roberts in the first game of that tournament, including a pair of threes from just over the halfcourt line as the Lady Tigers battled foul trouble and tried to mount a comeback against ORU...Was perfect from the free-throw line in seven times, including a 6-for-6 effort against Southern Miss...Shot 33.3 percent from the floor and 33.3 percent from three-point range...Was an 87.1 percent shooter from the free-throw line, although she only attempted 31 tries...Grabbed three steals in three different games and had at least one steal in 16 games...Had at least one assist in all but four games...Had four assists twice, once against Oklahoma State and once against Southern Miss...Averaged 20 minutes of playing time a game...Was also a Conference USA Academic Honor Roll honoree.

2003-04 (Freshman): Was one of two freshmen to play in all 31 games during the season...Started 15 games, including the last 14 straight...Led the team with 42 three-point field goals and was second on the team with a 34.1 percent from three-point range and first among the players who attempted more than 50 three-point shots...Finished fifth on the team with 56 assists...Averaged 6.4 points, tied for sixth on the squad, and 1.9 rebounds...Shot 78.4 percent (29-37) from the free-throw line...Added 29 steals...Scored a career-high 17 points against Idaho in the opening round of the Montana tournament, including a three-for-four mark from three-point range...Added 12 points the following night in the championship game against Montana, but somehow didn't make the all-tournament team...Hit double-digit scoring 10 times in her first collegiate season and never fouled out in 31 games...Has picked up four fouls just twice in her career...Had seven assists against Arkansas-Pine Bluff and six in her first college game against Maryland-Eastern Shore...In her first college game, she scored eight points with six assists, five rebounds and five steals...Already ranks 8th in career three-point field goals attempted (123) and 10th in career three-point field goals made (36)...Her 42 treys in 2003-04 was the seventh-best single season total in Memphis history.

High School: Hails from former coach Joye Lee-McNelis' prep alma mater Hancock High School...Played for coach Pam Slayton at HHS...Helped squad to a No. 1 preseason ranking in the state as compiled by the Jackson Clarion-Ledger...Ranked as the top senior on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and was listed to the Clarion-Ledger's Dandy Dozen team...Finished prep career with 2,000 points...Four-year letterwinner who averaged 14.5 points as a 52-percent shooter from the field...Scored a season-high 25 points against Domincan HS in New Orleans...Totaled 115 assists and 75 steals as a senior...Helped Hawks to a 25-9 record and a district championship...Honored as a Who's Who Most Athletic all four years at HHS...Also named to all-district, all-south state and all-coast teams...Received the Hancock Most Vaulable Player award last year...As a junior, she led her squad to the state tournament with an average of 16.0 points per game...Received Hancock's Lady Hawk Award, as well as being named all-district, all-south state and all-coast...Junior squad also finished 25-9 and as district champions...Named all-district and all-coast all four years of high school...Dropping in a career-high 34 points against Petal HS as a freshman.

Personal: Born June 21, 1985 in Necaise Crossing, Miss...Daughter of Pat and Paulette Necaise...Picked No. 23 for her jersey because that was Pistol Pete's number...Lists her biggest accomplishment as signing her scholarship and finding an amazing guy to spend the rest of her life with...Got engaged over the summer of 2005...Her hidden talent is that she can write poetry...Would like to see Tennessee added to the Lady Tiger schedule...Would like to learn to play golf...Worked for the Boys and Girls Club over the summer...Favorite childhood toy was a softball and glove...Lists The Wedding by Nicholas Sparks as her favorite book...Took Production and Operations Management class over the summer...If she could change anything about basketball, she would increase the number of fouls a player can pick up to at least six...After college she plans on getting married and pursing a career, maybe in insurance...Majoring in marketing...Said she picked Memphis because `everything just fit right'...Has one sister, Danielle DeWitt.


MANCHESTER, N.H. (SatireWire.com) — Although only a handful of people know the secret identity of "Ginger" — a product that reportedly will be "more important than the World Wide Web," and make its creator wealthier than Bill Gates — companies across the globe are gearing up for the new Ginger Economy, launching products and services they claim will "seamlessly integrate with the Ginger experience... whatever it is."

"I don't want to reveal too much, but let's just say we put the Gin in Ginger," boasted Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems. McNealy later conceded he hasn't found out what Ginger is, exactly, but argued that like the Internet, "it isn't what you know, but whether or not people perceive that you know."

Merrill Lynch's new Ginger analyst, Henry Blodget, agreed, and issued Strong Buy ratings on the entire Ginger sector, as soon as it forms.

So far, investors share his faith. Despite yesterday's warning from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan that a "Ginger Bubble" was forming, traders sent shares of Virginia-based VA Ginux up 113 points as investors were excited by the newly formed company's pledge to "provide the best support and training for Ginger's Linux capabilities... if, you know, it has any."

In the most telling move, however, chipmaker Intel wasted little time dumping its partnership with Microsoft Windows — the so-called Wintel alliance — for what it's already calling the Gintel alliance. "Whenever you hear the word 'Ginger,' we want you to think 'Intel Inside,'" said Intel CEO Craig Barrett. "Unless it doesn't have an inside."

Meanwhile, the Internet's governing body, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is reviewing an emergency request to create a new Ginger domain, which would be rendered as .gin. Companies, however, are not waiting to pledge their allegiance.

"This time, we will not be left behind," declared Juergen Schrempp, CEO of the recently renamed DaimlerGinger, which will retool its Chrysler factories to meet the expected demand for Ginger-related products. Asked for his reaction to claims that, far from being the next Internet, Ginger is simply a motorized scooter or, at best, nothing more than a media-driven phenomenon, Schrempp turned sarcastic. "Hmmm, let's review," he said. "Most people don't understand it or know what it is. The media claims it will lead to untold riches. So tell me again, how this is different from the Internet?"


Q:

'jQuery' type function for manipulating clojure maps

Is there a jQuery type function to solve the problem of walking through nested maps?
for example, if i have a configuration that looks like this:
  (def fig
    {:config
      {:example
        {:a "a"
         :b "b"
         :c "c"}
       :more
        {:a "a"
         :b "b"
         :c "c"}}})

I still haven't figured out a great way to manipulate nested persistent data structures with assoc and dissoc. However, if there was a jquery style way to manipulate maps, then I can write code like this:
  (->  fig
    ($ [:config :example :a] #(str % "a"))
    ($ [:config :b] #(str % "b")))

  Giving this output:

  {:config
    {:example
      {:a "aa"
       :b "bb"
       :c "c"}
     :more
      {:a "a"
       :b "bb"
       :c "c"}}}

And something like this for selectors:
($ fig [:config :example :a])
  ;=> "a"

($ fig [:config :b])
  ;=> {[:config :example :b] "b",
  ;    [:config :more :b] "b"}

So in essence, I'm looking for an implementation of jayq for manipulation of clojure objects instead of html doms.
Thanks in advance!

A:

update-in is a great function for updating nested maps.
user> (def data {:config
{:example  {:a "a" :b "b" :c "c"}}
 :more {:a "a" :b "b" :c "c"}})

user> (pprint (update-in data [:config :example] assoc :d 4))

{:config {:example {:a "a", :c "c", :b "b", :d 4}},
 :more {:a "a", :c "c", :b "b"}}

assoc-in may be a little closer to what you want
user> (pprint (assoc-in data [:config :example :d] 4))
{:config {:example {:a "a", :c "c", :b "b", :d 4}},
 :more {:a "a", :c "c", :b "b"}}

for reading values without changing them you can use the fact that keywords look themselves up in maps to write an even more compact form than the jquery form
user> (-> data :config :example :a)
"a"

A:

First of all, you should check out Enlive.
Otherwise: if you want to do what jQuery does (of course very simplified) - as opposed to just calling update-in:
Select:
(defn clj-query-select [obj path]
  (if (empty? path)
    (list obj)
    (when (map? obj)
      (apply concat
        (remove nil?
          (for [[key value] obj]
            (clj-query-select
              value
              (if (= key (first path)) (rest path) path))))))))

For call:
(clj-query-select {:a {:b 1} :b 2} [:b])

it should yield:
(1 2)

Update/replace:
(defn clj-query-update [obj path fn]
  (if (empty? path)
    (fn obj)
    (if (map? obj)
      (into obj
        (remove nil?
          (for [[key value] obj]
            (let [res (clj-query-update
                        value
                        (if (= key (first path)) (rest path) path)
                        fn)]
          (when (not= res value) [key res])))))
      obj)))

For call:
(clj-query-update {:c {:a {:b 1} :b 2}} [:c :b] #(* % 2))

it should yield:
{:c {:a {:b 2} :b 4}}

I didn't test it thoroughly though.


Q:

Regular expression to get Url without Query string

I am looking for a way to parse URL without queryString using Regular expression.
i have url like "http://abc.com/csd?/aaa/bbb"
expected is like "http://abc.com/csd"
Anybody help me on this.

A:

If you just want everything before the query string:
^[^?]+