Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Belgium

This chapter evaluates administrative procedure and judicial review in Belgium. The Belgian Constitution embodies, in particular, two constitutional provisions for the judicial oversight of unilateral administrative measures. A Council of State was established pursuant to Article 160 of the Constitution. Under the Act adopted on the basis of this provision, the Council of State is responsible for judicial review, on condition that such review has not been attributed to another ordinary or administrative court. Moreover, Article 159 requires judges not to apply any unilateral administrative measure that would be unlawful in the context of a dispute that they are called upon to settle. All unilateral administrative provisions, whether regulatory or individual, may be reviewed. A procedural error does not necessarily lead to the censure of the unilateral administrative provision in question. However, the breach of a requirement that the administration has to fulfil leads not only to the censure of the provision but can, as the case may be, give rise to compensation.

Characteristics of Students In Resolving Word Problems Based on Gender

This study aims to analyze student errors in resolving word problems, which are then formulated into characteristics of student errors according to gender. The subject selection was done randomly from male and female students of grade VII who made mistakes in solving the questions. Research data from the test results of 2 items word problem type. The form of student error is based on misconceptions, procedures, and techniques. The results showed the students' misconceptions, don’t understand question commands, do not write information correctly, misinterpret question information, do not simplify fractions correctly, do not understand the value of fractions, misunderstand number signs/symbols and do not understand number signs/symbols, incorrectly determine signs/symbols of operations. Procedural error, incorrectly determining the settlement operation Technical errors, incorrectly using calculation operation marks, incorrectly performing calculation operations, incomplete settlement steps, incomplete simplification, incorrect simplification. Technical errors, namely calculations are not in accordance with the command, less careful (careless) writing answers, errors in writing answers and it do not match the command questions (conclusion). The reason is not understanding the reading and not being familiar with the questions. Students' understanding and knowledge of reading have an important role in identifying, interpreting, and even selecting or determining completion strategies.

DEFRAGMENTATION THINKING STRUCTURE TO OVERCOME ERRORS IN ADDRESSING MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM

This research is intended to describe students' procedural errors in solving problems derivative of algebraic functions and efforts to overcome these errors by using the defragmentation process. Error analysis is carried out based on the procedural error theory based on Elbrink which includes the following aspects of errors: 1) Mis-identification; 2) Mis-generalization; 3) Repair Theory; and 4) Overspecialization. The subjects in this study are students of class XII MIPA Islamic State Senior High School (MAN) 3 Tulungagung taken from snowball random sampling. In taking the subject, the researchers select one of the students who make procedural errors by considering the completeness of the students when solving the given problems based on the problem-solving phase according to Polya. Based on the results of this study, it is found that the procedural errors made by the students are repair theory errors and overspecialization. The defragmenting process to correct these errors is intended to provide dis-equilibration and scaffolding. The results after the defragmenting process are the students can correct their mistakes and the structure of their thinking.Keywords: Defragmenting structure thinking; derivative algebraic functions; problem solving; procedural errors. AbstrakPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk menggambarkan kesalahan prosedural siswa dalam menyelesaikan masalah turunan fungsi aljabar dan upaya untuk mengatasi kesalahan tersebut dengan menggunakan proses defragmenting. Analisis kesalahan dilakukan berdasarkan konsep teori kesalahan prosedural menurut Elbrink yang mencakup aspek kesalahan sebagai berikut: Mis-identificstion; 2) Mis-generalization; 3) Repair Theory; dan 4) Overspecialization. Subjek dalam penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas XII MIPA MAN 3 Tulungagung yang diambil secara snowball random sampling. Dalam pengambilan subjek dipilih salah satu siswa yang melakukan kesalahan prosedural dengan mempertimbangkan kelengkapan siswa ketika menyelesaikan masalah yang diberikan berdasarkan tahap pemecahan masalah menurut Polya. Dari hasil penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa kesalahan prosedural yang dilakukan siswa ialah kesalahan repair theory dan overspecialization. Proses defragmenting yang dilakukan untuk memperbaiki kesalahan tersebut ialah dengan memberikan dissequillibrasi dan scaffolding. Hasil yang diperoleh setelah proses defragmenting dilakukan ialah siswa mampu memperbaiki kesalahannya dan struktur berpikirnya.Kata kunci: Defragmenting struktur berpikir, kesalahan prosedural, pemecahan masalah, turunan fungsi aljabar.

Procedural Errors in the Evidentiary Process and Their Impact on Criminal Proceedings in the Slovak Republic

The lawful procedure in evidentiary process is a conditio sine qua non of the admissibility of evidence. In other words, it is a necessary condition for the admission of evidence in criminal proceedings. The violation of this condition leads to procedural errors leading to the unlawfulness of the evidence, as a result of which the accused may be acquitted. For this reason, it's the aim of this article, not only to define the procedural errors, whose incidence is particularly noticeable in providing evidence by law enforcement authorities involved in criminal proceedings, but also to analyse their impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings, i.e. the decision about the guilt and punishment of the accused and on the basis of a specific example, to point out shortcomings which would be appropriate to prevent de lege ferenda. The presented article provides, on the one hand, a brief insight into the basic terminology related to the mentioned topic, explains the content and purpose of the legislation and on, the other hand, acquires more practical view, based on an analysis of selected example of procedural error in evidentiary process.

ANALISIS KESALAHAN SISWA KELAS VII SMP DALAM MENYELESAIKAN SOAL MATEMATIKA PADA MATERI BILANGAN BERPANGKAT BULAT POSITIF

<p><strong>Abstrak:</strong></p><p>Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui kesalahan yang dilakukan siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal matematika pada materi bilangan berpangkat bulat positif. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian diskriptif kualitatif. Populasi dalam penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas VII SMPN 2 Bangkinang Kota yang berjumlah 200 orang siswa. Sampel dalam penelitian ini adalah 10 orang siswa kelas VII-3 SMP Negeri 2 Bangkinang Kota. Teknik pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan menggunakan instrumen soal tes tertulis untuk mengetahui kesalahan yang dilakukan siswa. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, persentase siswa yang melakukan kesalahan dalam mengerjakan tes tertulis materi bilangan berpangkat bulat positif adalah sebagai berikut: 1) kesalahan konsep (43,67%), 2) kesalahan prosedur (48,27%), 3) kesalahan dalam operasi perhitungan (8,04%). Kesalahan yang banyak dilakukan siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal tes tertulis pada materi bilangan berpangkat bulat positif adalah kesalahan prosedur dengan kategori cukup yaitu kesalahan dalam menuliskan langkah-langkah penyelesaian.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Kata Kunci:</strong></p><p>Analisis Kesalahan, Bilangan Berpangkat Bulat Positif</p><p> </p><p><strong><em>Abstract: </em></strong></p><p>The purpose of this study is to find out the errors of the students in solving mathematical problems in a positive spherical number. This research is qualitative descriptive research. The Population of this study is 200 students from VII grade at SMPN 2 Bangkinang kota, while the sample consists of 10 students who were randomly selected. A test was used to collect the data. The results of the study shows that the students' errors are categorised as the following: 1) misconceptions (43.67%), 2) procedural error (48.27%), 3) miscalculation in operation (8.04%). The dominant errors of the students found in integer matter are in procedure erros which is in considerable category. They have miscalculation in writing the step of completion.</p><p> </p><p><strong><em>Keywords :</em></strong></p><p><em>Error Analysis, </em><em>Positive Spherical Number</em></p>

The medicolegal impact of misplaced pedicle and lateral mass screws on spine surgery in the United States

Spine surgery has been disproportionately impacted by medical liability and malpractice litigation, with the majority of claims and payouts related to procedural error. One common area for the potential avoidance of malpractice claims and subsequent payouts involves misplaced pedicle and/or lateral mass instrumentation. However, the medicolegal impact of misplaced screws on spine surgery has not been directly reported in the literature. The authors of the current study aimed to describe this impact in the United States, as well as to suggest a potential method for mitigating the problem.This retrospective analysis of 68 closed medicolegal cases related to misplaced screws in spine surgery showed that neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons were equally named as the defendant (n = 32 and 31, respectively), and cases were most commonly due to misplaced lumbar pedicle screws (n = 41, 60.3%). Litigation resulted in average payouts of $1,204,422 ± $753,832 between 1995 and 2019, when adjusted for inflation. The median time to case closure was 56.3 (35.2–67.2) months when ruled in favor of the plaintiff (i.e., patient) compared to 61.5 (51.4–77.2) months for defendant (surgeon) verdicts (p = 0.117).

STUDY OF PHYSICAL PROCESSES IN THE DIRECT CURRENT LINK OF THE LOADING-BACK SCHEME OF ASYNCHRONOUS MACHINES

The article notes the tendency of introducing asynchronous engines, entailing the necessity to introduce the equipment which is intended to carry out maintenance, repair and acceptance check-outs. The general part of test circuits for asynchronous motors by the loading-back method with two controlled inverters is emphasized. The mathematical model of similar schemes’ functioning is shown. The article gives the results obtained by mathematic simulation of physical processes in the direct current link in the loading-back scheme for asynchronous machines Significant ripple voltage of constant voltage and DC in these circuits is noted. The issue of measuring power in the DC link passing through one inverter to the test engine and through another inverter from the load generator is considered. The authors carried out calculation of the capacities mentioned in the steady state modes for asynchronous machines with nominal power of 0.37 kW, 5.5 kW and 250 kW at different values of capacitor capacitance included in the DC link. Basing on the results of calculations, the authors found the dependence between the relative value of the procedural error in determining power in the DC link by the product of the current values of pulsed voltages and current. The current value from the product of instantaneous values of voltage and current at some time interval was taken as the true value of power. It is shown that at the capacitor capacity above some critical value this procedural error does not exceed 0.9% at the nominal power of the test engines 0.37 kW; 0.3% – at the power of 5.5 kW; 0.2% – at the power of 250 kW. This error increases dramatically when capacitor capacitance decreases. It is shown that the value of the capacitance corresponding to the inflection of the considered dependence approximately corresponds to the value necessary for limiting ripple voltage in the DC link of up to 600 V.

An analysis of malpractice litigation in the surgical management of carotid artery disease

OBJECTIVECarotid artery disease is a common illness that can pose a significant risk if left untreated. Treatment via carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) can also lead to complications. Given the risk of adverse events related to treating, or failing to treat, carotid artery disease, this is a possible area for litigation. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the medicolegal factors involved in treating patients suffering carotid artery disease and to compare litigation related to CEA and CAS.METHODSThree large legal databases were used to search for jury verdicts and settlements in cases related to untreated carotid artery disease, CEA, and CAS. Search terms included “endarterectomy,” “medical malpractice,” “carotid,” “stenosis,” “stenting,” “stent,” and combinations of those words. Three types of cases were considered relevant: 1) cases in which the primary allegation was negligence performing a CEA or perioperative care (CEA-related cases); 2) cases in which the primary allegation was negligence performing a CAS or perioperative care (CAS-related cases); and 3) cases in which the plaintiff alleged that a CEA or CAS should have been performed (failure-to-treat [FTT] cases).RESULTSOne hundred fifty-four CEA-related cases, 3 CAS-related cases, and 67 FTT cases were identified. Cases resulted in 133 verdicts for the defense (59%), 64 settlements (29%), and 27 plaintiff verdicts (12%). The average payout in cases that were settled outside of court was $1,097,430 and the average payout in cases that went to trial and resulted in a plaintiff verdict was $2,438,253. Common allegations included a failure to diagnose and treat carotid artery disease in a timely manner, treating with inappropriate indications, procedural error, negligent postprocedural management, and lack of informed consent. Allegations of a failure to timely treat known carotid artery disease were likely to lead to a payout (60% of cases involved a payout). Allegations of procedural error, specifically where the resultant injury was nerve injury, were relatively less likely to lead to a payout (28% of cases involved a payout).CONCLUSIONSBoth diagnosing and treating carotid artery disease has serious medicolegal implications and risks. In cases resulting in a plaintiff verdict, the payouts were significantly higher than cases resolved outside the courtroom. Knowledge of common allegations in diagnosing and treating carotid artery disease as well as performing CEA and CAS may benefit neurosurgeons. The lack of CAS-related litigation suggests these procedures may entail a lower risk of litigation compared to CEA, even accounting for the difference in the frequency of both procedures.