Week 3 Lab Assignment 3 SubmissionIf you are using the Blackboard Mobile Learn iOS App, please click "View in Browser"Click the link above to submit your assignment.Students, please view the "Submit a Clickable Rubric Assignment" in the Student Center.Instructors, training on how to grade is within the Instructor Center.Lab Assignment 3: StoryboardingDue Week 3 and worth 40 pointsDeliverables: Storyboard Document depicting diagrams and descriptions (Web pages not necessary).Complete the weekly lab based on the following:Write the code for each lab assignment.The code is to be submitted in a single compressed folder (zip file) to the online course shell. The file must contain all .htm files, along with any other files that may be necessary for your project to run (ex: text files, images, etc.). When saving the file, it should be saved as Lab_#_Last name_First initial.htm. For example, if your name is Mary Smith the file for Lab 1 should be saved as Lab_1_Smith_M.htmAny and all written answers must be entered into the online course shell with the submission of the attached lab assignment.Follow the directions below to complete Lab Assignment 3:Create a storyboard for a four (4) page Website (one (1) home page and three (3) sub pages) and one (1) Cascading Style Sheet (.css). Using Microsoft Word, Microsoft Visio, or Dia, create a diagram of the layout and navigation structure.Explain the effects that the Cascading Style Sheet (.css) will have on the Web page. There must be a minimum of two (2) changes. Be sure to include detail. (Example: The Cascading Style Sheet (.css) will make the background color grey and change all H1 font to blue.) Describe what the home page will look like. (Will it have text? Will it have headings? Will it have an image? Etc.)Describe what the first, second, and third sub pages will look like. (Will they have text? Will they have headings? Will they have images? Etc.) Click here to view the grading rubric for this lab assignment.

Introduction: As healthcare administrators, there are a number of legal and ethical issues that may need your consideration. Review the following case study and address the questions that follow: From 1930 to 1960, about 5,000 patients at Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, located in Chicago, Illinois, were treated with x-ray therapy for some benign conditions of the head and neck. Among them was Joel Blaz, now a citizen of Florida, who received this treatment for infected tonsils and adenoids while he was a child in Illinois from 1947 through 1948. He has suffered various tumors, which he now attributes to this treatment. Blaz was diagnosed with a neural tumor in 1987. In 1974, Michael Reese set up the Thyroid Follow-Up Project to gather data and conduct research among the people who had been subjected to the x-ray therapy. In 1975, the program notified Blaz by e-mail that he was at increased risk of developing thyroid tumors because of the treatment. In 1976, someone associated with the program gave him similar information on a phone call and invited him to return to Michael Reese for evaluation and treatment at his own expense, which he declined to do. Dr. Arthur Schneider was placed in charge of the program in 1977. In 1979, Schneider and Michael Reese submitted a research proposal to the National Institutes of Health stating that a study based on the program showed “strong evidence” of a connection between x-ray treatments of the sort administered to Blaz and various sorts of tumors: thyroid, neural, and others. In 1981, Blaz received but did not complete or return a questionnaire attached to a letter from Schneider in connection with the program. The letter stated that the purpose of the questionnaire was to “investigate the long-term health implications” of childhood radiation treatments and to “determine the possible associated risks.” It did not say anything about “strong evidence” of a connection between the treatments and any tumors. In 1996, after developing neural tumors, Blaz sued Michael Reese’s successor, Galen Hospital in Illinois, and Dr. Schneider, alleging, among other things, that they failed to notify and warn him of their findings and that he might be at a greater risk of neural tumors in a way that might have permitted their earlier detection and removal or other treatment. There is a clear duty to warn the subject of previously administered radiation treatments when there is a strong connection between those treatments and certain kinds of tumors. The harm alleged, neural and other tumors would here be reasonably foreseeable as a likely consequence of the failure to warn and was in fact foreseen by Schneider. A reasonable physician, indeed any reasonable person, could foresee that if someone was warned of “strong evidence” of a connection between treatments to which he or she had been subjected and tumors, he or she would probably seek diagnosis or treatment and perhaps avoid these tumors, and if he or she was not warned, then he or she probably would not seek diagnosis or treatment, increasing the likelihood that he or she would suffer from such tumors. Other things being equal, therefore, a reasonable physician would warn the subject of the treatments. Tasks: Discuss the preventative measures that should be taken to prevent recurrence of such cases. As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format. Your initial posting should be addressed at 300–500 words. Submit your document to this Discussion Area by the due date assigned. Be sure to cite your sources using APA format.

Select a current issue within your workplace, social organization, or home, and briefly describe a workable research design to help solve that problem.Your journal entry must be at least 200 words in length. No references or citations are necessary.