Answer:
He should be made to understand that formularies must be developed with input from health practitioners such as pharmacists,doctors, etc.
Explanation:
Mr. Nguyen is suspicious about how plans establish these formularies. His suspicions should be allayed by explaining the basic principles of how formularies are established.
This involves the input of Health practitioners or experts who focus on various properties of the formularies to ensure it has a high efficacy and fit for consumption.
Answer:
Well, it is a 50-question examination, and depending on your age, it will tell you whether to take it online or in person, which I find peculiar.
Anyway, they might have insurance questions on there, unique areas that you drive in [unique speed limits], knowing whether to decrease or increase your following distance based on weather conditions and\or where you are on the road, drug & alcohol, licensing, "suspension, revocation, and cancelation of your license (points)", pre-driving techniques (oil pressure, tire pressure, etcetera), knowing how to drive depending on the time of day, etcetera.
I hope you take time to think about all of this, but not too much, and as always, I am joyous to assist anyone at any time.
No, there’s no credible evidence that provides us with proof the death penalty has more of a deterrent than any other form of punishment.
Answer:
B. Seep's is not liable because Abel didn't act within the scope of his employment.
Explanation:
According to the facts, Abel is a rightful employee of Seep Corporation. And he also has a duty to preserve the interest of his employer.
But at the same time, his act of beating up and assaulting Johnny was done outside of the jurisdiction of his working hours. And as such, he wasn't covered in the company's rule of using <em>"force to keep intruders from climbing the fence to enter the plant"</em>. Moreover, the personal attack that Johnny had done on him makes this assault personal. So, Abel's attack on Johnny has nothing to do with the company he works for, and the Corporation is not liable for any charges or damages that their employee had done outside of his 'employment' hours.
Thus, the <u>correct answer is option B.
</u>
I think the correct answer is a
