B. Prior to the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any rule or the adoption, increase, or decrease of any fee, the agency shall submit a report relative to such proposed rule change or fee adoption, increase, or decrease to the appropriate standing committees of the legislature and the presiding officers of the respective houses as provided in this Section. The report shall be so submitted on the same day the notice of the intended action is submitted to the Louisiana Register for publication in accordance with R.S. 49:953(A)(1). The report shall be submitted to each standing committee electronically if electronic means are available. If no electronic means are available, the report shall be submitted to the committee's office in the state capitol by certified mail with return receipt requested or by messenger who shall provide a receipt for signature. The electronic receipt by the committee, return receipt or the messenger's receipt shall be proof of receipt of the report by the committee.
(b) The office of state parks and the State Parks and Recreation Commission shall submit the report to the House Committee on Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs and the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.
(7) Repealed by Acts 2001, No. 451, §5, eff. Jan. 12, 2004.
(11) The Department of Natural Resources and all of the agencies made a part of it shall submit the report to the House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment and the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. However, for exercises of the commissioner of conservation's rulemaking authority pursuant to Chapter 13-A-1 of Title 38 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, the department shall submit the report to the House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment and the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.
(16) The Louisiana Department of Health and all of the agencies made a part of it shall submit the report to the House Committee on Health and Welfare and the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare.
D.(1)(a) The chairman of each standing committee to which reports are submitted shall appoint an oversight subcommittee, which may conduct hearings on all rules that are proposed for adoption, amendment, or repeal and on all proposed fee adoptions, increases, or decreases. Any such hearing shall be conducted after any hearing is conducted by the agency pursuant to R.S. 49:953(A)(2).
(ii) A summary of all comments received by the agency, a copy of the agency's response to the summarized comments, and a statement of any tentative or proposed action of the agency resulting from oral or written comments received.
(2)(a) Except as provided in Paragraph (H)(2) of this Section, any subcommittee hearing on a proposed rule shall be held no earlier than five days and no later than thirty days following the day the report required by Subparagraph (1)(b) of this Subsection is received by the subcommittee.
E.(1)(a) Each such determination shall be made by the respective subcommittees of each house acting separately. Action by a subcommittee shall require the favorable vote of a majority of the members of the subcommittee who are present and voting, provided a quorum is present.
(b) No later than three weeks before the deadline for legislative oversight action, the chairman of the subcommittee may request, by letter, the consent of the subcommittee members to have a mail ballot instead of a meeting to consider a proposed rule or proposed fee action. If no objection is received within ten days of the chairman's request, the chairman shall cause a mail ballot to be sent to the members of the subcommittee. In order for the subcommittee to reject a proposed rule or proposed fee action, a majority of ballots returned to the chairman at least twenty-four hours prior to the deadline for legislative oversight action must disapprove the change. Any determination by the subcommittee shall be made within the period provided for oversight hearings in Paragraph (D)(2) of this Section.
H.(1) If both the House and Senate oversight subcommittees fail to find a proposed rule change unacceptable as provided herein, or if the governor disapproves the action of an oversight subcommittee within the time provided in R.S. 49:968(G), the proposed rule change may be adopted by the agency in the identical form proposed by the agency or with technical changes or with changes suggested by the subcommittee, provided at least ninety days and no more than twelve months have elapsed since notice of intent was published in the Louisiana Register.
(2) Substantive changes to a rule proposed for adoption, amendment, or repeal occur if the nature of the proposed rule is altered or if such changes affect additional or different substantive matters or issues not included in the notice required by R.S. 49:953(A)(1). Whenever an agency seeks to substantively change a proposed rule after notice of intent has been published in the Louisiana Register pursuant to R.S. 49:953(A)(1), the agency shall hold a public hearing on the substantive changes preceded by an announcement of the hearing in the Louisiana Register. A notice of the hearing shall be mailed within ten days after the date the announcement is submitted to the Louisiana Register to all persons who have made request of the agency for such notice. Any hearing by the agency pursuant to this Paragraph shall be held no earlier than thirty days after the publication of the announcement in the Louisiana Register. The agency hearing shall conform to R.S. 49:953(A)(2)(b), and a report on the hearing shall be made to the oversight committees in accordance with Subparagraph (D)(1)(b) of this Section. The agency shall make available to interested persons a copy of such report no later than one working day following the submittal of such report to the oversight committees. Any determination as to the rule by the oversight committees, prior to gubernatorial review as provided in Subsection G of this Section, shall be made no earlier than five days and no later than thirty days following the day the report required by this Paragraph is received from the agency.
K.(1) Each year, no later than thirty days prior to the beginning of the regular session of the legislature, each agency shall submit a report to the appropriate committees as provided for in Subsection B of this Section. This report shall contain a statement of the action taken by the agency with respect to adoption, amendment, or repeal of each rule proposed for adoption, amendment, or repeal during the previous year and a report of the action taken by the agency with respect to any proposed fee adoption, increase, or decrease during the previous year.
(2) The report required by Paragraph (1) of this Subsection shall also contain a recitation of each petition and submission, if any, received by the agency pursuant to R.S. 49:953(C) during the previous calendar year and the agency's response to each petition and submission, if any were received.
L. After submission of the report required by Subsection K of this Section to the standing committee, a public hearing may be held by the committee for the purpose of reviewing the report with representatives of the agency.
Acts 1990, No. 312, §1; Acts 1990, No. 938, §1; Acts 1990, No. 1085, §1, eff. July 31, 1990; Acts 1991, No. 21, §2, eff. June 14, 1991; Acts 1991, No. 938, §5; Acts 1992, No. 377, §4, eff. June 17, 1992; Acts 1992, No. 447, §3, eff. June 20, 1992; Acts 1993, No. 119, §1; Acts 1993, No. 733, §1; Acts 1995, No. 1057, §1, eff. June 29, 1995 and Jan. 8, 1996 (1/8/96 date is applicable to Dept. of Health and Hospitals only); Acts 1996, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 36, §3, eff. May 7, 1996; Acts 1997, No. 1, §5, eff. April 30, 1997; Acts 1997, No. 1001, §1; Acts 1999, No. 568, §2, eff. June 30, 1999; Acts 2001, No. 8, §16, eff. July 1, 2001; Acts 2001, No. 9, §8, eff. July 1, 2001; Acts 2001, No. 300, §3; Acts 2001, No. 451, §5, eff. Jan. 12, 2004; Acts 2001, No. 1178, §7, eff. June 29, 2001; Acts 2003, No. 49, §3, eff. July 1, 2003; Acts 2003, No. 116, §3, eff. May 28, 2003; Acts 2003, No. 183, §7; Acts 2003, No. 358, §1; Acts 2003, No. 850, §3; Acts 2003, No. 1049, §1; Acts 2008, No. 580, §6; Acts 2008, No. 743, §4, eff. July 1, 2008; Acts 2010, No. 777, §1; Acts 2010, No. 861, §21; Acts 2010, No. 877, §3, eff. July 1, 2010; Acts 2012, No. 549, §1; Acts 2012, No. 725, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 2013; Acts 2012, No. 744, §1, eff. June 12, 2012; Acts 2013, No. 220, §23, eff. June 11, 2013; Acts 2014, No. 640, §3, eff. June 12, 2014; Acts 2014, No. 832, §7.(A); Acts 2018, No. 454, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019.


D.C. Law Library - § 22–2706. Compelling an individual to live life of prostitution against his or her will.
↪ § 22–2706. Compelling an individual to live life of prostitution against his or her will.
§ 22–2707. Procuring; receiving money or other valuable thing for arranging assignation.
(a) It is unlawful for any person, within the District of Columbia, by threats or duress, to detain any individual against such individual’s will, for the purpose of prostitution or a sexual act or sexual contact, or to compel any individual against such individual’s will, to reside with him or her or with any other person for the purposes of prostitution or a sexual act or sexual contact.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or by a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.
(2) A person who violates subsection (a) of the section when the individual so detained or compelled is under the age of 18 years shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or by a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.
This section is referenced in § 14-311 and § 23-113.
The 2013 amendment by D.C. Law 19-317 substituted “not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01” for “not more than $15,000” in (b)(1), and for “not more than $20,000” in (b)(2).
For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 214(b) of Omnibus Public Safety Emergency Amendment Act of 2006 (D.C. Act 16-445, July 19, 2006, 53 DCR 6443).
For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 214(b) of Omnibus Public Safety Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2006 (D.C. Act 16-490, October 18, 2006, 53 DCR 8686).
For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 214(b) of Omnibus Public Safety Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2007 (D.C. Act 17-10, January 16, 2007, 54 DCR 1479).
For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 214(b) of Omnibus Public Safety Second Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2007 (D.C. Act 17-25, April 19, 2007, 54 DCR 4036).
For temporary (90 days) amendment of this section, see § 229(b) of the Criminal Fine Proportionality Emergency Act of 2013 (D.C. Act 20-45, April 1, 2013, 60 DCR 5400, 20 DCSTAT 1300).


Weilian Lu v. Star Marianas Air, Inc.
Weilian Luv.Star Marianas Air, Inc.
WEILIAN LU, by and through her Personal Representative, XIAOJIE GE; Y. GE, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, XIAOJIE GE; XIN HONG, an individual, MEILIN ZHOU, an individual, XIOAHUA ZHOU, an individual, XIUZHONG ZHU, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. STAR MARIANAS AIR, INC., a corporation, MARIANAS AIR TRAVEL, a company, TINIAN TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a corporation, JAE CHOI, an individual, TIANING, a company, TOP DEVELOPMENT, INC., a corporation, DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
This case asks the Court to define the duties that a travel agency owes to its customers. In particular, Defendant Top Development, Inc. ("TDI") asks the Court to dismiss the negligence claim filed against it because a travel agency owes no duty of care to a customer that it books on an airline with regard to the airline's safety record or particular aircraft safety instructions. However, in the CNMI, the common law of negligence creates a duty to exercise reasonable care in all conduct, and the common law of agency creates a duty on the part of the principal to inform the agent of any facts pertinent to the relationship. The Court cannot address action or inaction under the guise of duty absent strong policy considerations, and therefore rejects TDI's argument. However, because Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead factual causation, the Court will grant TDI's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
The Court treats factual allegations in the complaint as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
On November 19, 2012, an airplane departing from Saipan International Airport en route to Tinian crashed into trees just north of the Saipan runway after takeoff. (Compl. ¶¶ 18-21, ECF No. 1). Plaintiff Weilian Lu was killed in the crash, and Plaintiffs Xin Hong, Meilin Zhou, Xioahua Zhou, and Xiuzhong Zhu were injured. (Id. at ¶ 24).
In its reply brief, TDI asserts that the incidents of SMA's problems were not known to TDI or reported in the local newspapers. (Reply 6 n. 1, ECF No. 32). These allegations were not included in the Plaintiffs' pleadings, and the Court declines to entertain them here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (stating that if matters outside the pleadings are not excluded by the court, the motion to dismiss must be converted to a motion for summary judgment).
In the fourth cause of action, Plaintiffs assert that the travel agencies that booked the flight, including TDI, were negligent for failing to "inspect SMA and its history involving plane crashes and other incidents" and failing to "provide safety instructions in Chinese to a group of Chinese tourists." (Id. at 37).
In its motion to dismiss, TDI argues (1) that it had no duty to inspect SMA or to provide safety instruction in Chinese, and (2) that the complaint pleads insufficient facts to show that TDI's failure to inspect or provide Chinese instructions caused the plaintiffs any harm. (Mot. to Dismiss 5-8, ECF No. 14). In opposition to TDI's motion, the plaintiffs argue that TDI owed a duty based on (1) basic principles of negligence, because TDI's act in booking the flight created the risk of harm, and (2) CNMI agency law as construed by the Supreme Court in Furuoka v. Dai-Ichi Hotel (Saipan), Inc., because travel agents owe their customers a duty to warn. (Opp'n 6-13, ECF No. 28). The plaintiffs essentially concede that they failed to plead causation, but seek leave to amend the complaint. (Id. at 13-15).
The Court will address the relevant duties first, then factual causation.
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Courts draw reasonable inferences in a plaintiff's favor, and a "well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears that recovery is very remote and unlikely," but "courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In diversity cases like this one, federal courts apply the law of the forum state or territory. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938) (stating that "the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state"). Commonwealth negligence claims are governed by the restatements of the American Law Institute ("ALI") unless "written law or local customary law" provides a contrary rule. 7 CMC § 3401. Here, the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, the Restatement (Third) of Agency, and Furuoka v. Dai-Ichi Hotel (Saipan) Inc., 6 N.M.I. 374 (2002) control.
To the extent that the Restatement (Second) of Torts or the Restatement (Second) of Agency retain their vitality following ALI's approval of their more recent iterations, they apply to this case as well.
A person acts negligently if the person does not exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances. Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person's conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensure, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm.
Restatement (Third) of Torts § 3.
"An actor whose negligence is a factual cause of physical harm is subject to liability for any such harm within the scope of liability, unless the court determines that the ordinary duty of reasonable care is inapplicable." Id. at § 6. Generally, an actor has a duty to exercise reasonable care when his conduct creates a risk of physical harm. Id. at § 7 & cmt. a ("In most cases, courts can rely directly on § 6 and need not refer to duty on a case-by-case basis."). Therefore, as an initial matter, the law presumes that TDI owed the plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable care when it sold them plane tickets. Id. at § 7 cmt. o ("An actor's conduct creates a risk when the actor's conduct or course of conduct results in greater risk to another than the other would have faced absent the conduct.").
TDI argues, however, that the Court should exempt it from the duty of reasonable care because inspecting the aircraft in question and providing safety instructions is properly the responsibility of SMA, as regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), and not TDI, as a travel agency. (Mot. to Dismiss 5-6). The Court disagrees with TDI's framing of the issue. Although SMA certainly owed the Plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable care in operating its aircraft, that duty does not displace TDI's duty of reasonable care with respect to booking the flight with SMA.
Determining whether a duty exists is a question of law and policy for the court. Furuoka, 6 N.M.I. at 381 (citing McCollum v. Friendly Hills Travel Ctr., 217 Cal. Rptr. 919, 922 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985); see Restatement (Third) of Torts § 7 cmt. a. ("[I]n some categories of cases, reasons of principle or policy dictate that liability should not be imposed."). For instance, some courts have determined that social hosts who serve alcohol to their guests do not owe a duty of reasonable care to persons injured by their guests' subsequent tortious conduct, because such liability could "impact on a substantial slice of social relations." Id. at § 7 cmt. a; see, e.g., Holliman v. United States, 22 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1113 (D. Ariz. 1998) ("Arizona law is clear that social hosts . . . do not have a duty to a third party injured by a guest to whom they served or furnished alcoholic beverages.").
As the Restatement explains, there are two means by which the law of negligence limits liability: no-duty rules and the scope-of-liability (formerly "proximate cause") element of a negligence claim. Restatement (Third) of Torts § 7 cmt. a. As the example of social host liability illustrates, no-duty rules are categorical in nature. Id. ("No-duty rules are appropriate only when a court can promulgate relatively clear, categorical, bright-line rules of law applicable to a general class of cases."). The scope of liability, on the other hand, "depends on factors specific to an individual case," as is therefore a question for the fact-finder. Id.; see Restatement (Third) of Torts § 29 ("An actor's liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor's conduct tortious."). An argument based on the scope of liability asks the jury whether "the harms risked by [the defendant's] tortious conduct include the general sort of harm suffered by the plaintiff." Id. at § 29 cmt. d. If not, then the harm is outside the scope of liability, and the jury should find the defendant not liable. Id.
TDI's argument that travel agents should not owe a duty of care to their customers based on airline negligence calls for a scope of liability determination, rather than a no-duty rule. Unlike the categorical social host no-duty rule, which eliminates any duty based on the social hosts' conduct of serving alcohol, TDI would limit the no-duty rule to a particular type of accident—a plane crash. It would not, therefore, be a no-duty rule, because a travel agent would still owe a duty of reasonable care based on the services provided for every other sort of risk it created. Such a rule would not accord with the Restatement or Commonwealth precedent. See Furuoka, 6 N.M.I. at 381 (agreeing with the lower court that the tour agent "owed [its customer] a duty to render its services . . . with reasonable care").
To be clear, even if TDI is correct that it should not be held liable for failing to inspect SMA aircraft or provide foreign-language safety instructions, the appropriate question is not whether TDI had a duty to take those actions, but whether it breached the duty of reasonable care by not performing them. Put differently, there is no common law negligence "duty" to take any particular action such as inspecting an aircraft; there is only the duty to exercise reasonable care, and the jury question of whether performing that action in a certain way breached the duty. See Restatement (Third) of Torts § 7.
Of course, nothing here prevents TDI from arguing that it did not breach its duty of reasonable care or that the plane crash fell outside the scope of liability based on SMA's negligence or the general responsibility of SMA to comply with FAA regulations. See Restatement (Third) of Torts §§ 3 (reasonable care), 29 (scope of liability). But those arguments cannot relieve TDI of its duty to exercise reasonable care and are not raised in TDI's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs also argue that TDI owed duties based on agency law as provided in Furuoka. (Opp'n 7, ECF No. 28). The Court agrees that the common law of agency imposes duties on an agent to provide its principal with relevant information, but here, the pleadings fail to show that such a relationship existed between TDI and Plaintiffs. The Court will grant leave for Plaintiffs to amend the Complaint to plead an agency relationship existed.
The duties owed by a travel agency to its customer is governed in the Commonwealth by the Restatement (Third) of Agency and Furuoka v. Dai-Ichi Hotel (Saipan), Inc., 6 N.M.I. 374 (2002). The Restatement defines agency as "the fiduciary relationship that arises when one person (a "principal") manifests assent to another person (an "agent") that the agent shall act on the principal's behalf and subject to the principal's control, and the agent manifests assent or otherwise consents so to act." Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 & cmt. c. ("A relationship is not one of agency within the common-law definition unless the agent consents to act on behalf of the principal, and the principal has the right throughout the duration of the relationship to control the agent's acts.").
"An agent has a fiduciary duty to act loyally for the principal's benefit in all matters connected with the agency relationship." Id. at § 8.01 & cmt. c (stating that "an agent's fiduciary duties to the principal vary depending on the parties' agreement and the scope of the parties' relationship," which "can be analyzed by identifying the parties to the relationship, examining whether particular interactions are as principal and agent, and specifying the duration of the relationship"). In particular, an agent has a duty to "use reasonable effort to provide the principal with facts the agent knows" or should know when the agent is on notice that "the principal would wish to have the facts or the facts are material to the agent's duties to the principal." Id. at § 8.11.
In Furuoka, a group of businessmen visited a Saipan hotel for a company trip. 6 N.M.I. at 376. During a dinner party near one of the hotel's pools, plaintiff Furuoka dove into the pool, hit his head on the bottom, and suffered a spinal injury. Id. at 377. In violation of Commonwealth law, there was no lifeguard present at the time. Id. Furuoka sued the tour agent that booked the trip, JTB, for breaching its alleged "duty to inform its customers of dangers the agent knows, or reasonably should know, the customers will encounter on a trip booked by the agent." Id. at 381. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of JTB. Id. at 376.
Applying common law agency principles, the Supreme Court reversed. Id. at 382. It presumed that JTB was Furuoka's agent and held that JTB had the duty of an agent to "use reasonable efforts to inform the tour participant of information material to the agency which [it] had notice the traveler would desire." Id. at 381 (citing McCollum, 217 Cal. Rptr. at 923 ("[A] travel agent who arranges vacation plans and therefore acts as more than a mere 'ticket agent' is a special agent of the traveler for the purposes of that one transaction between the parties" (citations omitted)); see Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 8.08 (agents duties of care, competence, and diligence to principal), 8.10 (agent's duty of good conduct), 8.11 (agent's duty to provide information). Furuoka stated a claim because he pleaded that JTB knew or should have known about the hotel's failure to maintain a lifeguard on premises, and that it breached its duty by failing to warn him of that danger. 6 N.M.I. at 382.
Here, both the Restatement (Third) of Agency and Furuoka suggest that TDI may have owed a duty to Plaintiffs to inform them of SMA's safety problems and provide Chinese-language safety instructions. That information may have been relevant to the scope of the agency relationship and of some importance to Plaintiffs. See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01; Furuoka, 6 N.M.I. at 381.
However, the scope of any agency relationship between TDI and the plaintiffs is not at all clear from the pleadings. The Complaint states that TDI is "liable under the doctrine of negligence in tort for the damages incurred as a result of the lack of due care that [it] displayed while booking Plaintiffs' flight with SMA and by providing no safety instructions in Chinese." (Compl. ¶ 36). However, nothing in the Complaint indicates that TDI assented to act on behalf of Plaintiffs or that Plaintiffs had power to control TDI's actions. See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01. Without pleading those fundamental elements of an agency relationship, there can be no liability on that basis. See McCollum, 217 Cal. Rptr. at 923; see Furuoka, 6 N.M.I. at 382 ("[A] tour operator is not an insurer, nor can he be reasonably expected to predict and forewarn of the endless list of dangers inherent in foreign travel"). However, the Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend to satisfy the pleading requirements.
Finally, TDI argues that Plaintiffs failed to plead causation between the allegedly negligent conduct—failure to inspect SMA and warn of crashes and failure to provide Chinese safety instructions—and the harm suffered in the plane crash. (Mot. to Dismiss 6-7). The Court agrees.
Factual cause is an element of a negligence claim; if "the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct" in question, then the defendant cannot be held liable. Restatement (Third) of Torts § 26 (factual cause); see id. at § 6 (elements of a prima facie case of negligence include factual cause). Here, the plaintiffs allege that TDI failed to "inspect SMA and its history involving plane crashes and other incidents" and failed to "provide safety instructions in Chinese to a group of Chinese tourists." (Compl. ¶ 27). However, the complaint never ties those alleged acts to the actual plane crash. For instance, TDI's failure to warn the plaintiffs of SMA's troubled history is only a factual cause of harm if Plaintiffs would have refused to fly SMA in the face of the warnings. But Plaintiffs do not allege that fact. Likewise, they do not allege how their injuries were caused by TDI's failure to provide them safety instructions in Chinese: were they trapped in the burning plane longer than they otherwise would have been? Plaintiffs do not explain.
Because the fourth cause of action against TDI fails to satisfactorily plead an essential element of negligence, it should be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). However, Plaintiffs could likely remedy the deficiency by amending the cause of action to show "but-for" causation. See Restatement (Third) of Torts § 26 cmt. b. Accordingly, the fourth cause of action will be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. See United States ex rel. Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) ("Normally, when a viable case may be pled, a district court should freely grant leave to amend.") (citations omitted).
Because the Complaint fails to state a claim for negligence against TDI with respect to the factual causation element, the Court will grant TDI's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13). The negligence claim against TDI is dismissed without prejudice. Any amended complaint shall be filed no later than March 13, 2015.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2015.


1.  Entitlement to initial disability ratings for coronary artery disease status post percutaneous intervention in excess of 10 percent prior to May 30, 2012, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter.
2.  Entitlement to initial disability ratings for diabetes mellitus, type II, with peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities in excess of 10 percent prior to October 26, 2009, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter.
3.  Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity associated with diabetes mellitus type II.
4.  Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity associated with diabetes mellitus type II.
The Veteran served on active duty from December 1965 to December 1968, involving service in the Republic of Vietnam.
These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2009 and October 2010 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
With regard to the diabetes claim, the RO granted service connection for diabetes mellitus in the April 2009 rating decision and assigned a 10 percent rating effective March 27, 2008.  Thereafter, the October 2010 rating decision increased the rating to 20 percent, effective October 26, 2009.  With regard to the heart disability, the RO granted service connection for coronary artery disease status post percutaneous intervention in the October 2010 rating decision and assigned a 10 percent rating effective April 30, 2009.  In the April 2012 rating decision, the RO assigned an earlier effective date of December 17, 2008 for the heart disability, with a 10 percent rating as of that date.  Thereafter, in the December 2012 rating decision, the RO increased the rating for heart disease to 30 percent, effective May 30, 2012.
In an August 2016 rating decision, service connection was granted and 10 percent ratings were assigned, for right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy associated with diabetes mellitus, type II.  However, because the rating criteria direct VA to evaluate compensable complications of diabetes separately unless they are part of a 100 percent evaluation, the Board will consider whether higher rating claims for service-connected right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy associated with diabetes mellitus, type II.  38 C.F.R. § 4.119, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7913, note (1).
In October 2015, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ).  In March 2016, the Board remanded the claims for further development.
1.  From December 17, 2008 to October 21, 2015, the Veteran's coronary artery disease caused unstable, severe angina and most closely approximates a workload of greater than 5 METs, but not greater than 7 METs; or evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation on electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, or x-ray.
2.  From October 22, 2015, the Veteran's coronary artery disease manifests in a workload of greater than 3 METs, but not greater than 5 METs, resulting in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope.
3.  From March 27, 2008 to October 25, 2009, the Veteran's diabetes mellitus required no more than a restricted diet for treatment.
4.  From October 26, 2009, the Veteran's diabetes mellitus required no more than a restricted diet and an oral hypoglycemic agent or insulin for treatment; no regulation of activities was required for diabetes.
5.  Prior to September 26, 2012, the Veteran's right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy manifested neurologic impairment that resulted in disability analogous to mild incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve.
6.  From September 26, 2012, the Veteran's right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy manifested neurologic impairment that resulted in disability analogous to moderate incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve.
1.  From December 17, 2008 to May 29, 2012, the criteria for a 30 percent rating, but not higher, for coronary artery disease have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.104, DC 7005 (2016).
2.  From May 30, 2012 to October 21, 2015, the criteria for a rating in excess of 30 percent for coronary artery disease have not been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7005, (2016).
3.  From October 22, 2015, the criteria for a rating of 60 percent, but not higher, for coronary artery disease have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.104, DC 7005 (2016).
4.  From March 27, 2008 to October 25, 2009, the criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent for diabetes mellitus have not been met.  38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 4.119, DC 7913 (2016).
5.  From October 26, 2009, the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus have not been met.  38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 4.119, DC 7913 (2016).
6.  Prior to September 26, 2012, the criteria for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent, for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy associated with diabetes mellitus, type II, have not been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3, 4.7, 4.14, 4.124a, DC 8520 (2016).
7.  From September 26, 2012, the criteria for a rating of 20 percent, but not higher, for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy associated with diabetes mellitus, type II, have been met.  U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3, 4.7, 4.14, 4.124a, DC 8520 (2016).
8.  Prior to September 26, 2012, the criteria for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent, for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy associated with diabetes mellitus, type II, have not been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3, 4.7, 4.14, 4.124a, DC 8520 (2016).
9.  From September 26, 2012, the criteria for a rating of 20 percent, but not higher, for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy associated with diabetes mellitus, type II, have been met.  U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3, 4.7, 4.14, 4.124a, DC 8520 (2016).
Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), 38 C.F.R. Part 4.  The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and their residual disorders in civil occupations.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (2016); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321 (a), 4.1 (2016).
Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating.  Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2016).
Where the evidence contains factual findings that demonstrate distinct time periods in which the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different evaluations during the course of the appeal, the assignment of staged ratings is appropriate.  See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-127 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).
An effective date for an increased rating should not be assigned mechanically based on the date of a diagnosis.  Rather, all of the facts should be examined to determine the date that the disability first manifested.  Accordingly, the effective date for an increased rating-as well as for an initial rating or for staged ratings-is predicated on when the increase in the level of disability can be ascertained.  Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219, 224 (2015); see also Young v. McDonald, 766 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014).  In determining when an increase is "factually ascertainable," all of the evidence must be looked to, including testimonial evidence and expert medical opinions, as to when the increase took place.  VAOPGCPREC 12-98.
The evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses, known as pyramiding, is generally to be avoided, 38 C.F.R. § 4.14.  However, ratings under more than one diagnostic code will be assigned when none of the symptomatology for any one of the disabilities is duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other disability.  See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 262 (1994).
As noted, the Veteran's heart disability was rated at 10 percent prior to May 30, 2012 and 30 percent from that date. The Veteran contends that higher ratings are warranted and thus, the Board will review the evidence related to both periods to determine if an increase is warranted.
Under DC 7005, a 10 percent evaluation is assigned for a workload greater than 7 METs but not greater than 10 METs resulting in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or continuous medication required.  A 30 percent evaluation is warranted for a workload of greater than 5 METs but not greater than 7 METs resulting in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope; or evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation on electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, or x-ray.  A 60 percent evaluation is warranted for more than one episode of acute congestive heart failure in the past year, or workload of greater than 3 METs but not greater than 5 METs resulting in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 30 to 50 percent.  A 100 percent rating is warranted for chronic congestive heart failure, or when a workload of 3 METs or less results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of less than 30 percent.  38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7005.
The Veteran received treatment with the VA for his heart disability.  A January 2009 VA treatment record states he had multiple risk factors of progressive angina.  The impression was minimal apical and minimal inferior ischemia and normal wall motion with ejection fraction of 66 percent.  In February 2009, the Veteran underwent cardiac intervention.  The physician indicated the percutaneous coronary intervention procedure was challenging due to tortuosity and multiple severe lesions.  He indicated there was difficulty delivering the stent to the right posterolateral branch.  However, it resulted in successful stenting of the right coronary artery using Endeavor drug-eluting stents.
Thereafter, an April 2009 VA treatment record indicated the Veteran sought treatment for cardiac catheterization for continued angina symptoms, despite the February 2009 stent placements.  The Veteran reported that his angina had worsened, including chest pain with activities of daily living and sometimes even at rest.  He noted his pain is associated with shortness of breath, diaphoresis and dizziness and may be relieved with the use of nitroglycerin.  Ongoing complaints and treatment for unstable angina were found in the record, including October 2009, March 2011 VA, May 2012 and August 2012 VA treatment records.
The Veteran has also been afforded several VA examinations throughout the appeal.  A March 2009 VA examiner indicated thallium stress scan results revealed on images a very small mild apical defect, plus a small, moderately severe proximal inferior defect.  Gated images revealed normal wall motion and the estimated left ventricular ejection fraction was 66 percent.  The examiner also noted the February 2009 noted treatment which included heart catheterization and PCI stent placements with the Veteran being diagnosed with 3 vessel coronary disease.  However, during the examination the Veteran denied dyspnea, cough, orthopnea, PND or angina pain.
The Veteran underwent a January 2010 VA examination in which he reported no shortness of breath, chest pain, orthopnea or paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea.  Ejection fraction testing was 75 percent.  He was afforded a September 2012 VA examination in which the examiner indicated symptoms of dyspnea, fatigue and angina, as well as testing which showed workload greater than 5 METs but not greater than 7 METs.  The examiner noted the Veteran could not perform an occupation involving prolonged strenuous physical exertion.
As noted, the Veteran was afforded a Board hearing in October 2015 in which he indicated his heart disability had worsened.  The claim came before the Board in March 2016 and was remanded for further development, including a VA examination to assess the current severity of the heart disability.
The Veteran was afforded a May 2016 examination in which he reported that he tried to remain active by walking but was unable to perform yardwork or participate in any heavy lifting or moving.  No myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure was noted and no recent hospitalizations were indicated.  The examiner indicated no cardiac dilatation was found and the most recent echocardiogram was from February 2009 and revealed left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 50 percent.  She performed an interview-based METs test during the examination which revealed workload of greater than 3 METs but not greater than 5 METs and resulted in fatigue and dizziness.  The examiner noted the Veteran had both an exercise stress test and an interview-based METs test and the interview-based METs test most accurately reflected the Veteran's current cardiac functional level.  Further, she noted the METs level limitation was due solely to the heart condition.  She stated his heart disability limits the work he can perform to no more than sedentary to light duties.
Based on the evidence above, the Board finds that increased ratings are warranted for the Veteran's appeal period.  His heart disability symptoms most closely approximate a 30 percent rating from the date of the claim to October 22, 2015, and a 60 percent rating is warranted from that date.
With regard to the initial period, December 17, 2008 to October 21, 2015, the Veteran sought significant treatment for his heart disability in 2009 and underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention procedure in February 2009.  A later April 2009 VA treatment record noted continued symptoms, including for severe angina.  The Veteran reported that his angina had worsened, including with activities of daily living and sometimes even at rest.  He continued to report angina symptoms throughout the appeal period.  Thus, based on the February 2009 procedure and treatment for symptoms thereafter, the Board finds a 30 percent rating is warranted from December 17, 2008 to October 21, 2015, in particular when resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor.
The Board acknowledges the VA examinations from March 2009 and January 2010 which did not appear to indicate symptoms consistent with a 30 percent rating.  No METs testing showed workload greater than 5 METs but not greater than 7 METs.  Further, the January 2010 examiner noted no reports of shortness of breath, chest pain, orthopnea or paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea and found ejection fraction of 75 percent.  However, the September 2012 VA examiner indicated symptoms of dyspnea, fatigue and angina.   He also reported that METs testing revealed workload of greater than 5 METs but not greater than 7 METs, consistent with a 30 percent rating under DC 7005.  Thus, based on the VA treatment records supporting ongoing unstable and severe angina, as well as the testing results from the September 2012 VA examination, the Board finds a rating of 30 percent is warranted from December 17, 2008, the date of the claim, to October 21, 2015 under DC 7005.
Although an increased rating is warranted for the initial rating period, an even greater increase to 60 percent or 100 percent is not warranted prior to October 22, 2015.  There was no evidence of congestive heart failure; that a workload of less than 5 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, solely due to his coronary artery disease; or that his left ventricular ejection fraction is less than 50 percent, as required for a 60 percent rating under DC 7005.
The Board notes from October 22, 2015, the date of the Board hearing, there is a reasonable basis for finding that the Veteran's service-connected heart disease more nearly approximates the criteria for a 60 percent rating under DC 7005.  During the October 2015 hearing, the Veteran essentially testified that his heart disability had worsened since the previous examination.
The Board remanded the claim in March 2016 and the Veteran was then afforded a May 2016 examination.  The examiner performed an interview-based METs test which revealed workload of greater than  3 METs but not greater than 5 METs, and resulted in fatigue and dizziness, which is consistent the 60 percent rating criteria under DC 7005.  She also noted the Veteran's interview-based METs test most accurately reflected his current cardiac functional level and that his METs level limitation was due solely to the heart condition.
Generally, the effective date for the award of an increased rating should not be assigned mechanically from the date of an examination, but from the date that the increase in disability can be first factually ascertainable.  See Swain, 27 Vet. App. at 224.  Here, the May 2016 VA examination provides the strongest support for an increased rating to 60 percent for the Veteran's heart disability.  However, the Board finds the date the increase is first factually ascertainable is October 22, 2015, the date of the Board hearing when the Veteran testified that his condition had worsened.
While an increased rating to 60 percent is warranted from October 22, 2015, the evidence of record does not support a further increase to 100 percent.  The Veteran has not been found to have congestive heart failure; that a workload of 3 METs or less results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, solely due to his coronary artery disease; or that his left ventricular ejection fraction is less than 30 percent.
Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence supports an increased rating to 30 percent from December 17, 2008 to October 21, 2015, and an increased rating to 60 percent thereafter.  In determining the current increases, the Veteran has been afforded the benefit of any doubt in this matter.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.
As noted above, the Veteran's diabetes claim was granted in an April 2009 rating decision and a 10 percent rating was assigned, effective March 27, 2008.  The October 2010 rating decision increased the diabetes rating to 20 percent, effective October 26, 2009.  Thus, both periods are being reviewed to determine if an increase is appropriate.
Under DC 7913, the criteria for a 10 percent rating require that diabetes mellitus be manageable by restricted diet only.  The criteria for a 20 percent rating are diabetes mellitus requiring insulin and restricted diet; or, an oral hypoglycemic agent and restricted diet.  The criteria for a 40 percent rating are diabetes mellitus requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities.  The criteria for a 60 percent rating are diabetes mellitus requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if separately evaluated.  Regulation of activities means avoidance of strenuous occupational and recreational activities.  A 100 percent rating requires even more, totally disabling symptomatology.
Following the Veteran's March 2008 claim, he was afforded a March 2009 VA examination in which the examiner indicated that the Veteran follows a restricted diet for diabetics.  He indicated there is no restriction of activity.  He stated the Veteran was limited to one half block of walking, but that the restriction was due to his heart disability and not diabetes.  He went on to diagnose the Veteran with non-insulin dependent diabetes, with exercise and diet for control.
The Board observes the Veteran received treatment at VA medical centers for his diabetes mellitus.  An August 2008 VA treatment record indicated the Veteran was on "diet control for now."  A February 2009 VA treatment record indicated the Veteran's diabetes was controlled by diet.  Additionally, a March 2011 VA record advised the Veteran to modify his diet.
The Veteran underwent a January 2010 VA examination in which the examiner indicated no ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions and no hospitalizations due to diabetes.  He similarly indicated the Veteran was on a restricted diabetic diet and that his treatment involved metformin.  The examiner stated the condition was stable as the Veteran took metformin, his last hemoglobin A1C was performed in October 2009 and was 6.6, and further, he had normal BUN and creatinine readings.
The Veteran was the afforded a September 2012 VA examination in which the examiner indicated the Veteran's treatment includes diet management and a prescribed oral hypoglycemic agent.  He indicated the Veteran required no regulation of activities related to his diabetes management.  His care was listed as less than twice per month and there were no hospitalizations noted.  The examiner indicated the Veteran's diabetes did not impact his ability to work.
At the October 2015 hearing, the Veteran asserted his diabetes had worsened.  He noted his rating should be 20 percent or greater due to his insulin use and restricted movement.  The Board then determined in March 2016 that a VA examination was necessary to determine the current severity of the diabetes condition.
The Veteran underwent a May 2016 VA examination in which the examiner indicated the Veteran's diabetes is managed by a restricted diet and insulin, more than one injection per day.  Significantly, the examiner noted the Veteran requires no regulation of activities as part of his medical management of diabetes mellitus.  His frequency of care was less than two times per month; no hospitalizations were noted, as well as no loss of strength and weight.  She further indicated no impact on his ability to work based on his diabetes.
Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds no increased rating in excess of 10 percent is warranted prior to October 26, 2009, and a rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted since that date.
With regard to the initial rating period of 10 percent, prior to October 26, 2009, there is no evidence which supports the Veteran managed his diabetes with a restricted diet and insulin, or with a restricted diet and an oral hypoglycemic agent.  The evidence simply indicates his treatment during this period necessitated a restricted diet and exercise.
The March 2009 VA examiner indicated the Veteran followed a restricted diet due to his diabetes.  The examiner indicated there was no necessity for insulin and no diabetic care due to hypoglycemia.  Further, VA treatment records, including from August 2008 and February 2009, support that the Veteran's condition was controlled by diet and exercise alone.  Therefore, the Board finds a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted prior to October 26, 2009.
With regard to the later period, from October 26, 2009, the evidence does not support a rating in excess of 20 percent is warranted.  The Veteran was afforded three VA examinations during this period, January 2010, September 2012 and May 2016.  The January 2010 examiner indicated the Veteran's treatment involved a restricted diet and the medication metformin.  The Veteran's condition was reported as stable.  The September 2012 examiner indicated the Veteran's diabetes was controlled by diet and a hypoglycemic agent.  Neither examiner noted a restriction to activities due solely to diabetes.
Following the March 2016 Board remand, the Veteran was afforded a May 2016 VA examination.  The examiner noted the Veteran's condition is managed by a restricted diet and insulin but does not result in regulation of activities as part of his medical management.  Thus, the evidence related to the appeal period supports that the Veteran consistently followed a restricted diet and took a hypoglycemic agent and/or insulin.  However, his treatment regime has not included regulation of activities due solely to diabetes at any time during the appeal period.  On the contrary, he has been encouraged to exercise to control his diabetes by his medical providers.
The Board accordingly finds that the Veteran's diabetes has not met the criteria for a 40 percent or higher rating under DC 7913 at any time during the appeal period because the criteria are successive in nature and regulation of activities is to be shown by medical evidence.  See Camacho v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 360, 366 (2007).  Additionally, the evidence does not support a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to October 26, 2009.  As the preponderance of the evidence is against any increased rating during the appeal periods, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3.
The Veteran's diabetic peripheral neuropathy in each leg associated with his diabetes is rated under DC 8520, paralysis of the sciatic nerve.  The RO granted the claim in an August 2016 rating decision and awarded 10 percent ratings for each leg.
DC 8520 provides for a 10 percent rating for mild incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve.  A 20 percent rating is warranted for moderate incomplete paralysis.  A 40 percent rating is warranted for moderately severe incomplete paralysis.  A 60 percent rating is warranted for severe incomplete paralysis with marked muscular atrophy.  Complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve (where the foot dangles and drops, there is no active movement possible of muscles below the knee and flexion of the knee is weakened or lost) warrants an 80 percent rating.
The Board notes that words such as "severe," "moderate," and "mild" are not defined in the Rating Schedule.  Rather than applying a mechanical formula, VA must evaluate all evidence, to the end that decisions will be just.  38 C.F.R. § 4.6.  Although the use of similar terminology by medical professionals should be considered, it is not dispositive of an issue.  Rather, all evidence must be evaluated in arriving at a decision regarding a request for an increased disability rating.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.6.  In applying the schedular criteria for rating peripheral nerve disabilities, the term "incomplete paralysis" indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type pictured for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the nerve lesion or to partial regeneration.  38 C.F.R. § 4.124a.
The Veteran was afforded a March 2009 VA examination in which the examiner noted the onset of the Veteran's leg problems were in early 2008.  The Veteran reported some tingling and numbness distally in his feet.  He also indicated that his neuropathy in his lower extremities interferes with daily activities because the exercise needed for his heart makes his lower extremities worse.  The examiner concluded he did not find any positive physical findings in the Veteran's feet and that he showed improvement with the medication he was taking.
The Veteran underwent a January 2010 examination for his service-connected diabetes mellitus in which the Veteran reported numbness and a pins-and-needles sensation in the soles of his feet for the prior year.  The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with peripheral neuropathy of his lower extremities with subjective symptoms, which are at least as likely as not secondary to diabetes.
Thereafter, during the September 2012 VA examination, the examiner indicated that in both lower extremities the Veteran has moderate pain, constant and intermittent, moderate paresthesias and/or dysesthesias and moderate numbness.  He also reported the Veteran has mild incomplete paralysis in both lower extremities.  No functional impact was noted.
Following the Board's March 2016 remand, the Veteran underwent a May 2016 VA examination in which he reported chronic numbness to his feet.  The examiner noted moderate right lower extremity paresthesias and/or dysesthesias and mild left lower extremity paresthesias and/or dysesthesias.  She also indicated decreased sensation to the Veteran's lower extremities and mild incomplete paralysis in both lower extremities.  The examiner reported the Veteran has difficulty with balance due to his neuropathy which poses an increased fall risk and further, precludes him from work involving frequent mobility or activity involving climbing, bending, stooping and walking.
Based on the evidence, and when affording the Veteran all reasonable doubt, the Board finds that from September 26, 2012, increased ratings to 20 percent are warranted for both lower extremities.  The Veteran has exhibited moderate lower extremity peripheral neuropathy symptoms from that date.  Prior to September 26, 2012, ratings in excess of the current 10 percent ratings for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities are not warranted under DC 8520.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102.
Prior to September 26, 2012, mild neuropathy symptoms are demonstrated in the Veteran's lower extremities, indicative of a 10 percent rating.  He reported in March 2009 some tingling and numbness distally in his feet and that his neuropathy interferes with daily activities.  In the January 2010 examination, the Veteran reported numbness and a pins-and-needles sensation in the soles of his feet.  When he was afforded the September 2012 VA examination, his symptoms worsened.  The examiner found moderate pain in both lower extremities, as well as moderate paresthesias,  dysesthesias and numbness.  He also reported the Veteran has mild incomplete paralysis in both lower extremities.
While increased ratings to 20 percent are warranted for the lower extremity disabilities effective September 26, 2012, even higher ratings are not supported, as symptomatology indicative of moderately severe or severe incomplete paralysis of the lower extremities was not present.  The Board notes the September 2012 and May 2016 VA examiners both found mild incomplete paralysis in both lower extremities.  Thus, prior to September 26, 2012, the evidence does not support a rating in excess of 10 percent for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in each leg.  From September 26, 2012, ratings of 20 percent, but not higher, are warranted.  See Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219, 224 (2015).
In sum, the Board grants increased ratings to 20 percent for the Veteran's right and left diabetic peripheral neuropathy from September 26, 2012, but any further increases are denied.  Except to the extent granted herein, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims; there is no doubt to be resolved; and further increased ratings are not warranted.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).
From December 17, 2008 to May 29, 2012, a rating of 30 percent, but not higher, for coronary artery disease is granted, subject to the law and regulations governing payment of monetary benefits.
From May 30, 2012 to October 21, 2015, a rating in excess of 30 percent for coronary artery disease is denied.
From October 22, 2015, a rating of 60 percent, but not higher, for coronary artery disease is granted, subject to the law and regulations governing payment of monetary benefits.
Prior to October 26, 2009, a rating in excess of 10 percent for diabetes mellitus is denied.
From October 26, 2009, a rating in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus is denied.
Prior to September 26, 2012, an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity diabetic peripheral neuropathy is denied.
From September 26, 2012, a rating of 20 percent for right lower extremity diabetic peripheral neuropathy is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the payment of monetary benefits.
Prior to September 26, 2012, an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity diabetic peripheral neuropathy is denied.
From September 26, 2012, a rating of 20 percent for left lower extremity diabetic peripheral neuropathy is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the payment of monetary benefits.


text:
Agarwal, A., Shah, S. V., Bandyopadhyay, S., & Saha, S. K. (2013). Dynamics of serial kinematic chains with large number of degrees-of-freedom. Multibody System Dynamics, , 1-26.
Alaei, M. H., Mahajan, P., Brieu, M., Kondo, D., Rizvi, S. J. A., Kumar, S., & Bhatnagar, N. (2013). Effect of particle size on thermomechanical properties of particulate polymer composite. Iranian Polymer Journal (English Edition), 22(11), 853-863.
Ambad, P. M., & Kulkarni, M. S. (2013). A methodology for design for warranty with focus on reliability and warranty policies. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 10(1), 139-155.
Arora, N., Gupta, A., Sanghi, S., Aono, H., & Shyy, W. (2013). A lattice boltzmann framework for analysis of 'clap and fling' motion of finite thickness membranes. Paper presented at the 31st AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, San Diego, CA, USA.
Asjad, M., Kulkarni, M.S. & Gandhi O.P. (2013). A Life Cycle Cost based approach of O&M support for mechanical systems. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 4(2), 159-172.
Asjad, M., Mohite, S., Kulkarni, M. S., & Gandhi, O. P. (2013). Opportunistic actions for subassemblies of a reciprocating compressor: An LCC based approach. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 9(3), 273-285.
Asjad, M., Kulkarni, M.S. & Gandhi, O.P. (2013). Supportability Prespectives: Current Practices and Potential Area for Future Research. Accepted for publication in International Journal of Industrial and System Engineering.
Bhore, S. P., & Darpe, A. K. (2013). Investigations on characteristics of micro/meso scale gas foil journal bearings for 100-200 W class micro power systems using first order slip velocity boundary conditions and the effective viscosity model. Microsystem Technologies, 19(4), 509-523.
Bhore, S. P., & Darpe, A. K. (2013). Nonlinear dynamics of flexible rotor supported on the gas foil journal bearings. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 332(20), 5135-5150.
Bolia, N., & Rai, R. N. (2013). Reliability based methodologies for optimal maintenance policies in military aviation. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 9(3), 295-303.
Chawla, A., Mukherjee, S., Hassan, A.H., Grover, V. & Ng, E. (2013). Car Accident Reconstruction and Head Injury Correlation. Institute of Engineers Journal of India, Series C: 94 (2) 113-121.
Chittawadigi, R. G., & Saha, S. K. (2013). An analytical method to detect collision between cylinders using dual number algebra. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 5353-5358.
Chouksey, M., Dutt, J. K., & Modak, S. V. (2013). Model updating of rotors supported on journal bearings. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 71, 52-63.
Chouksey, M., Dutt, J. K., & Modak, S. V. (2013). Model updating of rotors supported on ball bearings and its application in response prediction and balancing. Measurement, 46(10), 4261-4273.
Das, R. S., & Jain, S. (2013). Experimental performance of indirect air-liquid membrane contactors for liquid desiccant cooling systems. Energy, 57, 319-325.
Dhandole, S. D., & Modak, S. V. (2013). Effectiveness of updated vibro-acoustic models for analysis of interior noise in cavities. Advances in Vibration Engineering, 12(4), 369-376.
Du, W., Xue, N., Gupta, A., Sastry, A.M., Martins, J.R.R.A. & Shyy, W. (2013). Optimization of LiMn2O4 electrode properties in a gradient- and surrogate-based framework. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 29(3), 335-347.
Gandhi, A., Asija, N., Gaur, K.K., Rizvi, S. J. A., Tiwari, V., & Bhatnagar, N. (2013). Ultrasound assisted cyclic solid-state foaming for fabricating ultra-low density porous acrylonitrile–butadiene–styrene foams. Materials Letters, 94, 76-78.
Goswami, J., Bhatnagar, N., Mohanty, S., & Ghosh, A. K. (2013). Processing and characterization of poly(lactic acid) based bioactive composites for biomedical scaffold application. Express Polymer Letters, 7(9), 767-777.
Gupta, D., Srivastava, A., & Kale, S. (2013). Thermal properties of single and double layer fabric assemblies. Indian Journal of Fibre and Textile Research, 38(4), 387-394.
Gupta, M., Pasi, A., Ray, A., & Kale, S. R. (2013). An experimental study of the effects of water mist characteristics on pool fire suppression. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 44, 768-778.
Gupta, T. C., & Gupta, K. (2013). Correlation between different parameters of a horizontal flexible rotor ball bearing system for instability and chaos. ASME Turbo Expo 2013, Texas, USA, Paper No. GT2013-95308.
Jain, V., Kundu, A., Chan, F. T. S., & Patel, M. (2013). A chaotic bee colony approach for supplier selection-order allocation with different discounting policies in a coopetitive multi-echelon supply chain. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, , 1-14.
Kala, P., Kumar, S., & Pandey, P. M. (2013). Polishing of copper alloy using double disk ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive polishing. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 28(2), 200-206.
Khas, K. S., Pandey, P. M., & Ray, A. R. (2013). Rapid manufacturing of a clubfoot model imitating soft tissue and bones: This paper reports an exploration of fabricating a composite clubfoot model consisting of both soft and hard tissues for biomechanical assessment of infant clubfoot. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 8(3), 187-192.
Koul, M., Shah, S. V., Saha, S. K., & Manivannan, M. (2013). Reduced-order forward dynamics of multiclosed-loop systems. Multibody System Dynamics, , 1-26.
Kumar, G., Jain, V., & Gandhi, O. P. (2013). Feasibility of analytical solution for transient availability using semi-markov process. International Journal of Reliability and Safety, 7(4), 388-410.
Kumar, V., Singhal, G., & Subbarao, P. M. V. (2013). Study of supersonic flow in a constant rate of momentum change (CRMC) ejector with frictional effects. Applied Thermal Engineering, 60(1-2), 61-71.
Lad, B. K., & Kulkarn, M. S. (2013). Reliability and maintenance based design of machine tools. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 9(3), 321-332.
Manikandan, G., Uthayakumar, M., & Aravindan, S. (2013). Machining and simulation studies of bimetallic pistons. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 66(5-8), 711-720.
Meshram, S. D., Madhusudhan Reddy, G., & Pandey, S. (2013). Friction stir welding of maraging steel (grade-250). Materials and Design, 49, 58-64.
Modak, S. V. (2013). Separation of structural modes and harmonic frequencies in operational modal analysis using random decrement. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 41(1-2), 366-379.
Modi, B., & Kumar, D. R. (2013). Development of a hydroforming setup for deep drawing of square cups with variable blank holding force technique. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 66(5-8), 1159-1169.
Mohan, V. P. C., & Talukdar, P. (2013). Design of an experimental set up for convective drying: Experimental studies at different drying temperature. Heat and Mass Transfer/Waerme- Und Stoffuebertragung, 49(1), 31-40.
Muzakkir, S. M., Hirani, H., & Thakre, G. D. (2013). Lubricant for heavily loaded slow-speed journal bearing. Tribology Transactions, 56(6), 1060-1068.
Narayanan, P., Mayank Tiwari, & Kshitij Gupta, (3013). Non-Linear dynamics, instability and chaos of two spool aero gas turbine rotor system, ASME Gas Turbine India (GTINDIA) Conference, Bangalore, India, Paper No. GTINDIA 2013-3582.
Nehete, D. V., Modak, S. V., & Gupta, K. (2013). A method for fe model updating of coupled vibro-acoustic systems using constrained optimization. Proc. of the ASME 2013 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, IMECE2013, San Diego, USA, Paper No. IMCE2013 – 66843.
Om, H., & Pandey, S. (2013). Effect of heat input on dilution and heat affected zone in submerged arc welding process. Sadhana - Academy Proceedings in Engineering Sciences, , 1-23.
Parwani, A. K., Talukdar, P., & Subbarao, P. M. V. (2013). Performance evaluation of hybrid differential evolution approach for estimation of the strength of a heat source in a radiatively participating medium.International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 56(1-2), 552-560.
Parwani, A. K., Talukdar, P., & Subbarao, P. M. V. (2013). Simultaneous estimation of strength and position of a heat source in a participating medium using DE algorithm. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 127, 130-139.
Patel, V. N., Tandon, N., & Pandey, R. K. (2013). Vibration studies of dynamically loaded deep groove ball bearings in presence of local defects on races. Paper presented at the Procedia Engineering, , 64 1582-1591.
Ponappa, K., Aravindan, S., & Rao, P. V. (2013). Influence of Y2O3 particles on mechanical properties of magnesium and magnesium alloy (AZ91D). Journal of Composite Materials, 47(10), 1231-1239.
Rajkumar, K., & Aravindan, S. (2013). Tribological behavior of microwave processed copper-nanographite composites. Tribology International, 57, 282-296.
Rajput, M. S., Pandey, P. M., & Jha, S. (2013). Micromanufacturing by selective jet electrodeposition process. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, , 1-7.
Rawal, B. R., & Bhatnagar, N. (2013). An investigation on the effect of groove geometry on cementless femoral stem component in hip arthroplasty. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 16(24), 2073-2075.
Roy, H., Dutt, J. K., & Datta, P. K. (2013). Dynamic behavior of stepped multilayered viscoelastic beams - a finite element approach. Advances in Vibration Engineering, 12(1), 75-88.
Samvedi, A., & Jain, V. (2013). A grey approach for forecasting in a supply chain during intermittentdisruptions. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26(3), 1044-1051.
Samvedi, A., & Jain, V. (2013). A study on the interactions between supply chain risk management criteria using fuzzy DEMATEL method. International Journal of Operational Research, 18(3), 255-271.
Samvedi, A., Jain, V., & Chan, F. T. S. (2013). Quantifying risks in a supply chain through integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Production Research, 51(8), 2433-2442.
Sarkar, C., & Hirani, H. (2013). Synthesis and characterization of antifriction magnetorheological fluids for brake. Defence Science Journal, 63(4), 408-412.
Satyarthi, M. K., & Pandey, P. M. (2013). Comparison of EDG, diamond grinding, and EDM processing of conductive alumina ceramic composite. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 28(4), 369-374.
Satyarthi, M. K., & Pandey, P. M. (2013). Modeling of material removal rate in electric discharge grinding process. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 74, 65-73.
Shah, S. V., & Saha, S. K. (2013). Correlation between diagonal ratio and condition number of the generalized inertia matrix of a serial-chain. Archive of Mechanical Engineering, 60(1), 147-156.
Shah, S. V., Saha, S. K., & Dutt, J. K. (2013). Dynamics algorithms for multibody systems. Advances in Vibration Engineering, 12(3), 227-239.
Shakya P., Darpe, A. K., & Kulkarni, M. S. (2013) Vibration-based fault diagnosis in rolling element bearings: ranking of various time, frequency and time-frequency domain data-based damage identification parameters, International Journal of Condition Monitoring, 3(2), 1-10.
Singh, A. K., Jha, S., & Pandey, P. M. (2013). Mechanism of material removal in ball end magnetorheological finishing process. Wear, 302(1-2), 1180-1191.
Singh, A. K., Jha, S., & Pandey, P. M. (2013). Rheological behavior of mr polishing fluid in ball end magnetorheological finishing process. Magnetohydrodynamics, 49(3-4), 512-515.
Singh, D., Premachandran, B., & Kohli, S. (2013). Experimental and numerical investigation of jet impingement cooling of a circular cylinder. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 60(1), 672-688.
Singh, D., Premachandran, B., & Kohli, S. (2013). Numerical simulation of the jet impingement cooling of a circular cylinder. Numerical Heat Transfer; Part A: Applications, 64(2), 153-185.
Singh, J. P., & Pandey, P. M. (2013). Fitment study of porous polyamide scaffolds fabricated from selective laser sintering. Paper presented at the Procedia Engineering, , 59 59-71.
Singh, V. K., & Talukdar, P. (2013). Comparisons of different heat transfer models of a walking beam type reheat furnace. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 47, 20-26.
Srivastava, V., & Pandey, P. M. (2013). Experimental investigation on electrical discharge machining process with ultrasonic-assisted cryogenically cooled electrode. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 227(2), 301-314.
Srivastava, V., & Pandey, P. M. (2013). Study of ultrasonic assisted cryogenically cooled EDM process using sintered (cu-TiC) tooltip. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 15(1), 127-135.
Subramanian, K. A., Mathad, V. C., Vijay, V. K., & Subbarao, P. M. V. (2013). Comparative evaluation of emission and fuel economy of an automotive spark ignition vehicle fuelled with methane enriched biogas and CNG using chassis dynamometer. Applied Energy, 105, 17-29.
Sudeep, U., Pandey, R. K., & Tandon, N. (2013). Effects of surface texturing on friction and vibration behaviors of sliding lubricated concentrated point contacts under linear reciprocating motion. Tribology International, 62, 198-207.
Talukdar, P., Mendes, M. A. A., Parida, R. K., Trimis, D., & Ray, S. (2013). Modelling of conduction-radiation in a porous medium with blocked-off region approach. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 72, 102-114.
Tambe, P. P., & Kulkarni, M. S. (2013). An opportunistic maintenance decision of a multi-component system considering the effect of failures on quality. Paper presented at the Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science, , 1 LNECS 693-698.
Tambe, P. P., Mohite, S., & Kulkarni, M. S. (2013). Optimisation of opportunistic maintenance of a multi-component system considering the effect of failures on quality and production schedule: A case study. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 69(5-8), 1743-1756.
Tambe, P.P. & Kulkarni, M.S. (2013). A novel approach for production scheduling of a high pressure die casting machine subjected to selective maintenance and a sampling procedure for quality control. Accepted for publication in International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management.
Teja, C. K., Chawla, A., & Mukherjee, S. (2013). Determining the strain rate dependence of cortical and cancellous bones of human tibia using a split hopkinson pressure bar. International Journal of Crashworthiness,18(1), 11-18.
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2013). Supply chain issues in SMEs: Select insights from cases of indian origin. Production Planning and Control, 24(1), 47-71.
Tomar, P., Pandey, R. K., & Nath, Y. (2013). An accurate analysis for computation of thermal minimum film thickness in inlet zone in hydrostatic extrusion process. Tribology Online, 8(2), 171-178.
Tomar, P., Pandey, R. K., & Nath, Y. (2013). Numerical modeling of frictional stress in the contact zone of direct extrusion of aluminum alloys under starved lubrication. JOM, 65(11), 1426-1432.
Tornar, P., Pandey, R. K., & Nath, Y. (2013). Numerical simulation of friction stress in wire drawing produced by direct extrusion process in presence of lubricant starvation. Paper presented at the Procedia Engineering, , 64 1320-1328.
Uthayakumar, M., Aravindan, S., & Rajkumar, K. (2013). Wear performance of al-SiC-B4C hybrid composites under dry sliding conditions. Materials and Design, 47, 456-464.
Vashistha, V., & Talukdar, P. (2013). Numerical studies for performance evaluation of a permeable ceiling panel for regulation of indoor humidity. Energy and Buildings, 62, 158-165.
Xue, N., Du, W., Gupta, A., Shyy, W., Sastry, A.M. & Martins, J.R.R.A. (2013). Optimization of a single Lithium-ion battery cell with a gradient-based algorithm. Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 160(8), A1071-A1078.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
Post-doctoral work, Center for Neuroscience Research, Washington D.C.
The overall goal of my lab is to understand the cellular and molecular mechanisms that regulate the transition of undifferentiated neural progenitor cells (“neural stem cells”) into specialized neural cells during normal development, and to examine how these mechanisms function in pathological situations when microenvironments are modified. To address these questions, my lab uses animal models clinically relevant to the study of neuropathological disorders along with a combination of genetic and genomic approaches, transplantation, chemical, and viral vector-based in vivo models in parallel with tissue culture studies, to examine extrinsic (environmental) and intrinsic factors that govern the differentiation of adult neural stem/precursor cells into mature functional neural cells following nervous system pathologies. In particular, we study a unique kind of neural progenitor cell defined and identified by expression of the NG2 proteoglycan (NG2-progenitor cells). NG2-progenitor cells are the most numerous progenitor cells in the nervous system and normally are found in a quiescent state. Under pathological situations, however, they are the first cells to respond, switching to an active proliferative state to expand their numbers. They subsequently exit the cell cycle at an appropriate time and differentiate. Despite their abundance, we know very little about their responsiveness to external factors under normal and pathological conditions. Taken together, we anticipate it will be possible to exploit the insights gained from our studies to use endogenous NG2-progenitor cells for cell-based replacement for a variety of brain pathologies.
Gadea A, Aguirre A, Haydar T, Gallo V. (2009) A novel role for endothelin1 as a regulator of oligodendrocyte progenitor recruitment in development and remyelination. J. Neurosci. 29, 10047-10062.
Li X, Tang X, Jablonska B, Aguirre A, Gallo V, Luskin MB. (2009) p27 (KIP1) regulates neurogenesis in the rostral migratory stream and olfactory bulb of the postnatal mouse. J. Neurosci. 29, 2902-2914.
Jablonska B, Aguirre A, Vandenbosch R, Belachew S, Berthet C, Kaldis P, Gallo V. (2007) Cdk2 is critical for proliferation and self-renewal of neural progenitor cells in the adult subventricular zone. J. Cell. Biol. 179, 1231-1245.
Aguirre A, Dupree JL, Mangin JM, Gallo V. (2007) A functional role for EGFR signaling in myelination and remyelination. Nat. Neurosci. 10,990-1002.
Sohn J, Natale J, Chew LJ, Belachew B, Cheng Y, Aguirre A, Lytle J, Nait-Oumesmar B, Kerninon C, Kanai-Azuma M, Kanai Y, Gallo V. (2006) Identification of Sox17 as a transcription factor that regulates oligodendrocyte development. J. Neurosci. 26, 9722-9735.
Aguirre A, Rizvi TA, Ratner N, Gallo V. (2005) Overexpression of the epidermal growth factor receptor confers migratory properties to nonmigratory postnatal neural progenitors. Journal of Neuroscience 25, 11092-11106.
Chittajallu R, Aguirre A, Gallo V. (2005) Downregulation of platelet-derived growth factor-alpha receptor-mediated tyrosine kinase activity as a cellular mechanism for K+-channel regulation during oligodendrocyte development in situ. Journal of Neuroscience 25, 8601-8610.
Hachem S, Aguirre A, Vives V, Marks A, Gallo V, Legraverend C. (2005) Spatial and temporal expression of S100B in cells of oligodendrocyte lineage. Glia 51, 81-97.
Aguirre A and Gallo V. (2004) Postnatal neurogenesis and gliogenesis in the olfactory bulb from NG2-expressing progenitors of the subventricular zone. Journal of Neuroscience 24, 10530-10541.
Chittajallu R, Aguirre A*, Gallo V. (2004) NG2-positive cells in the white and grey matter display distinct physiological properties. Journal of Physiology 561,109-122. *Equal first authorship.
Aguirre A, Chittalallu R, Belachew S and Gallo V. (2004) NG2-expressing cells in the subventricular zone are Type C-like cells and contribute to interneuron generation in the postnatal hippocampus. Journal of Cell Biology 165, 575-589.
López-Bayghen E, Aguirre A, and Ortega A. (2003) Transcriptional regulation through glutamate receptors: involvent of tyrosine kinases. Journal of Neuroscience Research 74, 717-725.
Belachew S, Chittalallu R, Aguirre A, Yuan X, Anderson S, Kirby M, and Gallo V. (2003) Postnatal NG2 proteoglycan-expressing progenitor cells are intrinsically multipotent and generate functional neurons. Journal of Cell Biology 161, 169-186.
Belachew S, Aguirre A, Wang H, Vautier F, Yuan X, Anderson S, Kirby M, and Gallo V. (2002) Cyclin-Dependent kinase 2 controls oligodendrocyte progenitor cell cylce progression and is downregulated in adult oligodendrocyte progenitors. Journal of Neuroscience 22, 8553-8562.
Aguirre A, López-Bayghen E, and Ortega A. (2002) Glutamate-dependent transcriptional regulation of the chkbp gene: Signaling mechanims. Journal of Neuroscience Research 70, 117-127.
Aguirre A, López T, López-Bayghen E, and Arturo Ortega. (2000) Glutamate regulate kainate binding protein expression in cultured chick Bergmann glia through Activator-Protein-1. Journal of Biological Chemistry 275 39246-39253.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
Miller, J. (1999). AnoGen: A program for generating ANOVA data sets. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 230-231.
Weaver, K. A. (1999). The statistically marvelous medical growth chart: A tool for teaching variability. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 284-286.
Morgan, B. L. (2001). Statistically lively uses for obituaries. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 56-58.
The School Spirit Study Group. (2004). Measuring school spirit: A national teaching exercise. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 18-21.
Riniolo, T. C., & Schmidt, L. A. (1999). Demonstrating the gambler’s fallacy in an introductory statistics class. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 198-200.
Sciutto, M. J. (2000). Demonstration of the factors affecting the F ratio. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 52-53.
Christopher, A. N., & Marek, P. (2002). A sweet tasting demonstration of random occurrences. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 122-125.
Lawson, T. J., Schwiers, M., Doellman, M., Grady, G., & Kelnhofer, R. (2003). Enhancing students’ ability to use statistical reasoning with everyday problems. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 107-110.
Connor, J. M. (2003). Making statistics come alive: Using space and students’ bodies to illustrate statistical concepts. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 141-143.
García, C., & García, M. R. R. (2004). Cinema and multiple regression. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 56-58.
Ryan, R. S. (2006). A hands-on exercise improves understanding of the standard error of the mean. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 180-183.
Hogan, T. P., & Evalenko, K. (2006). The elusive definition of outliers in introductory statistics textbooks for behavioral sciences. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 252-256.
Segrist, D. J., & Pawlow, L. A. (2007). The mixer: Introducing the concept of factor analysis. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 121-123.
Matz, D. C., & Hause, E. L. (2008). “Dealing” with the central limit theorem. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 198-200.
Christopher, A. N., & Marek, P. (2009). A palatable introduction to and demonstration of statistical main effects and interactions. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 130-133.
Owen, W. J., & Siakaluk, P. D. (2011). A demonstration of the analysis of variance using physical movement and space. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 151-154.
Stalder, D. R., & Olson, E. A. (2011). t for two: Using mnemonics to teach statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 247-250.
Sachau, D. A. (2000). Floating data and the problem with illustrating multiple regression. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 53-54.
Dodd, D. K. (2000). Teaching meta-analysis in the undergraduate experimental psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 54-56.
Scepansky, J., & Carkenord, D. M. (2004). Senior year retention of methods and statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 9-12.
Sibulkin, A. E., & Butler, J. S. (2008). Should college algebra be a prerequisite for taking psychology statistics? Teaching of Psychology, 35, 214-217.
Freng, S., Webber, D., Blatter, J., Wing, A., & Scott, W. D. (2011). The role of statistics and research methods in the academic success of psychology majors: Do performance and enrollment timing matter? Teaching of Psychology, 38, 83-88.
Bartsch, R. A., Case, K. A., & Meerman, H. (2012). Increasing academic self-efficacy in statistics with a live vicarious experience presentation. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 133-136.
Friedrich, J., Buday, E., & Kerr, D. (2000). Statistical training in psychology: A national survey and commentary on undergraduate programs. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 248-257.
Landrum, R. E. (2005). Core terms in undergraduate statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 249-251.
Lauer, J. B., Rajecki, D. W., & Minke, K. A. (2006). Statistics and methodology courses: Interdepartmental variability in undergraduate majors’ first enrollments. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 24-30.
Gibson, W. E., & Darron, C. (1999). Teaching statistics to a student who is blind. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 130-131.
Dolinsky, B. (2001). An active learning approach to teaching statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 55-56.
Perkins, D. V., & Saris, R. N. (2001). A “jigsaw classroom” technique for undergraduate statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 111-113.
Rajecki, D. W. (2002). Personal ad content analysis teaches statistical applications. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 119-122.
VanVoorhis, C. R. W. (2002). Stat jingles: To sing or not to sing. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 249-250.
Kolar, D. W., & McBride, C. A. (2003). Creating problems to solve problems: An interactive teaching technique for statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 67-68.
Ruscio, J. (2003). Comparing Bayes’s theorem to frequency-based approaches to teaching Bayesian reasoning. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 325-328.
Benedict, J. O., & Anderton, J. B. (2004). Applying the just-in-time teaching approach to teaching statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 197-199.
Guttmannova, K., Shields, A. L., & Caruso, J. C. (2005). Promoting conceptual understanding of statistics: Definitional versus computational formulas. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 251-253.
Hatfield, J., Faunce, G. J., & Job, R. F. S. (2006). Avoiding confusion surrounding the phrase “correlation does not imply causation.” Teaching of Psychology, 33, 49-51.
Bartsch, R. A. (2006). Improving attitudes toward statistics in the first class. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 197-198.
Lyle, K. B., & Crawford, N. A. (2011). Retrieving essential material at the end of lectures improves performance on statistics exams. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 94-97.
Karpiak, C. P. (2011). Assessment of problem-based learning in the undergraduate statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 251-254.
Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (1999). The correlator: A self-guided tutorial. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 298-299.
Aberson, C. L., Berger, D. E., Healy, M. R., Kyle, D. J., & Romero, V. L. (2000). Evaluation of an interactive tutorial for teaching the central limit theorem. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 289-291.
Hurlburt, R. T. (2001). “Lectlets” deliver content at a distance: Introductory statistics as a case study. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 15-20.
Peden, B. F. (2001). Correlational analysis and interpretation: Graphs prevent gaffes. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 129-131.
Bartz, A. E., & Sabolik, M. A. (2001). Computer and software use in teaching the beginning statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 147-149.
Warner, C. B., & Meehan, A. M. (2001). Microsoft Excel™ as a tool for teaching basic statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 295-298.
Britt, M. A., Sellinger, J., & Stillerman, L. M. (2002). A review of ESTAT: An innovative program for teaching statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 73-75.
Aberson, C. L., Berger, D. E., Healy, M. R., & Romero, V. L. (2003). Evaluation of an interactive tutorial for teaching hypothesis testing concepts. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 75-78.
Raffle, H., & Brooks, G. P. (2005). Using Monte Carlo software to teach abstract statistical concepts: A case study. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 193-195.
Petrocelli, J. V. (2007). The utility of computer-assisted power analysis lab instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 248-252.
Lloyd, S. A., & Robertson, C. L. (2012). Screencast tutorials enhance student learning of statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 67-71.
Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2001). Improving the science education of psychology students: Better teaching of methodology. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 173-181.
Jackson, S. L., Lugo, S. M., & Griggs, R. A. (2001). Research methods textbooks: An objective analysis. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 282-288.
Grahe, J. E., Williams, K. D., & Hinsz, V. B. (2000). Teaching experimental methods while bringing smiles to your students’ faces. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 108-111.
Lipsitz, A. (2000). Research methods with a smile: A gender difference exercise that teaches methodology. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 111-113.
Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Survey design and multiple regression: Frequently encountered, but infrequently covered. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 201-203.
Sciutto, M. J. (2002). The methods and statistics portfolio: A resource for the introductory course and beyond. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 213-215.
Marek, P., Christopher, A. N., & Walker, B. (2004). Learning by doing: Research methods with a theme. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 128-131.
Lakin, J. L., Giesler, R. B., Morris, K. A., & Vosmik, J. R. (2007). HOMER as an acronym for the scientific method. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 94-96.
Burkley, E., & Burkley, M. (2009). Mythbusters: A tool for teaching research methods in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 179-184.
Morgan, D. L. (2009). Using single-case design and personalized behavior change projects to teach research methods. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 267-269.
Chapdelaine, A., & Chapman, B. L. (1999). Using community-based research projects to teach research methods. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 101-105.
Kazmerski, V. A., & Blasko, D. G. (1999). Teaching observational research in introductory psychology: Computerized and lecture-based methods. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 295-298.
Fontes, L. A., & Piercy, F. P. (2000). Engaging students in qualitative research through experiental class activities. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 174-179.
Morris, K. A. (2003). Teaching students about classic findings on the detection of deception. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 111-113.
Madson, L. (2005). Demonstrating the importance of question wording on surveys. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 40-43.
Enders, C. K., Laurenceau, J-P., Stuetzle, R. (2006). Teaching random assignment: A classroom demonstration using a deck of playing cards. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 239-242.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Teaching psychology students to be savvy consumers and producers of research questions. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 211-213.
Munro, G. D., & Munro, J. E. (2000). Using daily horoscopes to demonstrate expectancy confirmation. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 114-116.
Hildebrandt, C., & Oliver, J. (2000). The mind as black box: A simulation of theory building in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 195-197.
Jackson, J. W. (2000). Demonstrating the concept of illusory correlation. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 273-276.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lohr, J. M., & Morier, D. (2001). The teaching of courses in the science and pseudoscience of psychology: Useful resources. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 182-191.
Leshowitz, B., DiCerbo, K. E., & Okun, M. A. (2002). Effects of instruction in methodological reasoning on information evaluation. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 5-10.
Varmhagen, C. K., & Digdon, N. (2002). Helping students read reports of empirical research. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 160-165.
O’Dell, C. D., & Hoyert, M. S. (2002). Active and passive touch: A research methodology project. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 292-294.
Boyce, T. E., & Geller, E. S. (2002). Using the Barnum effect to teach psychological research methods. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 316-318.
Connor-Greene, P. A., & Greene, D. J. (2002). Science or snake oil? Teaching critical evaluation of “research” reports on the Internet. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 321-324.
LoSchiavo, F. M., & Roberts, K. L. (2005). Testing pseudoscientific claims in research methods courses. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 177-180.
Stark, E. (2012). Enhancing and assessing critical thinking in a psychological research course. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 107-112.
Dunn, D. S. (2000). Letter exchanges on statistics and research methods: Writing, responding, and learning. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 128-130.
Henderson, B. B. (2000). The reader’s guide as an integrative writing experience. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 130-132.
Smith, G. E., & Eggleston, T. J. (2001). Comprehending APA style through manuscript analysis. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 108-110.
Ware, M. E., Badura, A. S., & Davis, S. F. (2002). Using student scholarship to develop student research and writing skills. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 151-154.
Goddard, P. (2003). Implementing and evaluating a writing course for psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 25-29.
Schuetze, P. (2004). Evaluation of a brief homework assignment designed to reduce citation problems. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 257-259.
White, T., & Kirby, B. J. (2005). ‘Tis better to give than to receive: An undergraduate peer review project. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 259-261.
Stellmack, M. A., Konheim-Kalkstein, Y. L., Manor, J. E., Massey, A. R., & Schmitz, J. A. P. (2009). An assessment of reliability and validity of a rubric for grading APA-style introductions. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 102-107.
Luttrell, V. R., Bufkin, J. L., Eastman, V. J., & Miller, R. (2010). Teaching scientific writing: Measuring student learning in an intensive APA skills course. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 193-195.
Radhakrishnan, P., Lam, D., & Tamura, E. K. (2010). Guided experimentation with databases improves argumentative writing. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 210-215.
Johnson, E. J., Tuskenis, A. D., Howell, G. L., & Jaroszewski, K. (2011). Development and effects of a writing and thinking course in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 229-236.
Estow, S., Lawrence, E. K., & Adams, K. A. (2011). Practice makes perfect: Improving students’ skills in understanding and avoiding plagiarism with a themed methods course. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 255-258.
Greenberg, K. P. (2012). A reliable and valid weighted scoring instrument for use in grading APA-style empirical research report. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 17-23.
Levine, J. R. (2000). Attending a professional conference: A hands-on seminar course. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 208-210.
Pury, C. L. S. (2001). Use of in-class lab groups to enrich independent research projects. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 280-282.
Marek, P., Christopher, A. N., & Koenig, C. S. (2002). Applying technology to facilitate poster presentations. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 70-72.
Sommer, B. A., & Sommer, R. (2003). A virtual lab in research methods. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 171-173.
Hamilton, M., & Geraci, L. (2004). Converting an experimental laboratory course from paper and pencil to computer. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 141-143.
Dermer, M. L. (2004). Using CHAINS, a QuickBASIC 4.5 program, to teach single-subject experimentation with humans. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 285-288.
Stadlander, L. M., & Giles, M. J. (2010). Virtual instruction: A qualitative research laboratory course. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 281-286.
Bragger, J. D., & Freeman, M. A. (1999). Using a cost-benefit analysis to teach ethics and statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 34-36.
Brinthaupt, T. M. (2002). Teaching research ethics: Illustrating the nature of the researcher-IRB relationship. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 243-245.
Borshuk, C. (2006). Introducing diverse perspectives into research methods classes. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 256-258.
Perlman, B., & McCann, L. I. (2005). Undergraduate research experiences in psychology: A national study of courses and curricula. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 5-14.
Tomcho, T. J., Rice, D., Foels, R., Folmsbee, L., Vladescu, J., Lissman, R., Matulewicz, R., & Bopp, K. (2009). APA’s learning objectives for research methods and statistics in practice: A multimethod analysis. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 84-89.
Bachiochi, P., Everton, W., Evans, M., Fugere, M., Escoto, C., Letterman, M., & Leszczynski, J. (2011). Using empirical article analysis to assess research methods courses. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 5-9.
Manning, K., Zachar, P., Ray, G. E., & LoBello, S. (2006). Research methods courses and the scientist and practitioner interest of psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 194-196.
Holmes, J. D., & Beins, B. C. (2009). Psychology is a science: At least some students think so. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 5-11.
Sizemore, O. J., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2009). Learning might not equal liking: Research methods course changes knowledge but not attitudes. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 90-95.
Feedback regarding the content of this book should be directed toward the editors. They are solely responsible for the substance of the text. Feedback regarding technical matters of formatting or accessibility of this text via the online environment of the Internet should be directed to the Internet Editor. If you have any complaints or difficulties in accessing these materials, be sure to provide as detailed a description of your problem(s) as you can; you should include information about the browser you are using (e.g., Firefox, Safari) and its version number well as the type of computer you are using and its operating system (e.g., Mac PowerBook 4 running MacOS 10.3.2).

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V.