Soweit ich die Rechtslage kenne, können sie höchstens einen Amtsarzt hinzuziehen, der allerdings im Nachhinein dem ursprünglichen Arzt nicht widersprechen kann.
Wie soll er einen Migräneanfall von vor mehreren Tagen nachweisen? Das wäre also sinnlos und eher Schikane.
(1 votes)
Loading...Ich habe einer Frau in der 11. Klasse in Mathe geholfen. Die ist jetzt Psychologin und ich Pizzafahrer
Hey, hatte jemand von euch die Kombination Deutsch & Englisch LK und kann sie empfehlen? Ich bin in beiden Fächern sehr gut, aktuell bin ich in der EF (11. Klasse) und wir schreiben immer 90min lang. Da ich mir sehr viel Mühe gebe und nicht schnell schreibe habe ich oft Zeitprobleme und schreibe zudem nicht…
Hi:) Ich habe am Montag meine Italienisch Nachprüfung um in die Maturaklasse aufzusteigen, letztes Jahr wurden die Prozent für einen 4er um 10 prozent erhöht, also wenn ich bei einer Schularbeit 56% habe ist es trotzdem eine 5. Ist das bei der Nachprüfung auch so? Oder brauche ich da nur 50%? Lg
Hallo, ich habe morgen mein Praktikum, das zwei Wochen dauert. Ich besuche ein kaufmännisches Berufskolleg 1. Meine BWL-Prüfungen und alle anderen Arbeiten habe ich bereits geschrieben. Eine Praktikumsstelle habe ich gefunden und die entsprechenden Zettel meiner Lehrerin bereits abgegeben. Das Problem ist, dass ich Magen-Darm habe und nun Angst habe, meinen Abschluss deswegen nicht zu…
Kann mir wer helfen wie ich anhand eines Erlebniss eine Reflexion schreibe. Aufbau..
An official may and should have his own opinion.
And a higher credibility than non-official doctors.
I know that such an attest must not be accepted.
It has already been decided several times in court that doubts can arise relatively simply on such “online-AU’s”, so the school can reject it in case of doubt.
Never heard of it. Source?
If I know, courts are agreed, such a doctor may set up online AUs and employers are obliged to accept them.
My state of law.
Then you should read the current case law. You can find the judgments about this easily by Google search.
Well, I can only repeat: if you think you need to know.
Until now nothing came. You may have a mental limitation. I mean, you don’t understand your own texts, and so far there has been no sensible answer. With every other comment of this kind, you only affirm your own inability.
Yes, correct, I did not explain this because it is not my job. You can read the judgment yourself in full text. There’s everything you have to say. I don’t have to read it anymore.
But you said, I can’t do my job anyway. So I don’t have to explain this to you anymore, I think I’m “spiritually disabled” 😉
You didn’t even try to explain the judgment from your point of view, probably because you interpret it as much as I do.
If your interpretation was logical and comprehensible, I would of course have it applied. Until now, nothing came from you.
“I think this is so” friends, I refer to your own sources.
I just like your comments. Your only source here is “I believe this is so” and a verdict that you roughly misinterpret and you do not allow any other opinion. Amusing.
So do I, very bad…
Okay, I guess that’s the way. Shame!
That’s what the article says, not me!
I doubt you really have anything to do with law.
Whether you’re a lawyer or want to become a lawyer, I don’t know, but I don’t want to be represented by you in court. That can only fail.
Yeah, all right, if you say that, it must be.
Since you can’t undo my point of view, there’s nothing left for you to withdraw.
If you had another ass in your sleeve, you’d show it here.
Weak performance my good.
Okay, okay.
I can’t blame you for saying things that don’t vote like that.
You haven’t even dealt with your own sources, Mr. JuraJura-Master.
If I’d be wrong, you could take it off.
Your retreat is only a weak performance.
I will finish the conversation now. If that’s your opinion, follow this one. But then you can save this question here if you accept no other opinion from people who know it.
You’re good!
P.S.: Maybe ask why my name is so chosen. Unfortunately, I do this professionally.
“AU again possible by phone since 7 December 2023
At the end of 2023, the possibility of telephone insolvency was reintroduced under certain conditions.”
Sorry, unanswered–>reintroduced.
Check now? Does it rat up there?
A verdict was lifted. Ouch. Someone doesn’t know how the judicative works. Too bad.
I quoted the facts. What do you not understand?
This article proves my position. In 2021 a verdict was issued, namely online AU’s must not be issued and in 2023 the verdict was revoked.
Here again in your own words.
If you think you know better, just go. I’m not here to convince you of my legal opinion, I just replied – whether you accept it or not, I don’t care about it with permission.
I’ll tell you that.
You can be sure I read the article correctly 🙂
You don’t finish the article:
“AU again possible by phone since 7 December 2023
At the end of 2023, the possibility of telephone insolvency was reintroduced under certain conditions.”
The court judgment 2023 has lifted the court judgment 2021.
What is wrong with the SECOND link? Please read correctly.
https://www.tk.de/firm customers/service/special topics/insurance subject/judgment-noe-efz-bei-determiner-online-au-2113656
With someone who insults others, I will not discuss further, this is not my level. You can find someone else. Good evening.
It’s about a page that has sent patients directly to Teleclinic, not my question.
“No patients for Teleclinic via Doc Morris
In certain cases, the Teleclinic online medical portal cannot be supplied to patients by the consignor Doc Morris. This is a judgment of the Landgericht Munich (LG) of 23rd May 2024. The pharmacist chamber of North Rhine (AKNR) had complained.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=teleclinic+judgment&oq=teleclinic+judgs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyCQgAEEUYORiABNIBCDQ0NjBqMGo0qAIBsAIB&client=ms-android-googlesourceid=chromemobile
The second link…
I didn’t find anything. Actually, you have to get a record if you say that.