(redirected from mitigations)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal.
Related to mitigations: weightage, dictio, COMETH


(mit′ĭ-gāt″) [L. mitigare, to soften]
To reduce the intensity of an effect; alleviate.
mitigated (-gāt″ĕd), adjectivemitigation (mit″ĭ-gā′shŏn)

mitigation (mit´igā´shən),

n alleviation; abatement or diminution of a penalty imposed by law.
mitigation of damages,
n a reduction of damages based on facts showing that the plaintiff's course of action does not entitle the plaintiff to as large an amount as the evidence would otherwise justify the jury in allowing.

Patient discussion about mitigation

Q. I have had ankylosing spondilitis for over 25 years. What is available at this point to mitigate the effects?

A. The mainstay of the treatment severe ankylosing spondylitis today are "anti-TNF", drugs that affect the immune system through blocking the action of a protein called TNF.

Other optional treatments include sulfasalazine and thalidomide.
Of course, all these treatments require prescription and consultation with a doctor (in this case usually rheumatologist).

You may read more here:

More discussions about mitigation
References in periodicals archive ?
Develop standard questions for recorded statements by adjusters in order to determine the number of days mitigation actually occurred on site, confirm how many employees and machines were used, and how often they were checked.
Insurance companies and their investigators also must recognize that mitigation companies don't work alone.
If the customer is worried and wants the area checked out, the plumber recommends the mitigation company paying him the finder's fee.
Insurers must understand that to successfully combat fraudulent water mitigation claims they must identify and investigate these relationships, as well as eliminate the entire network.
How do you identify a network of operatives in a water mitigation scam?
Use all evidence of trends to convince a judge or a jury that something the water mitigation company characterizes as a mistake, actually is a pattern and practice of the company with the intent to deceive the insurer and collect insurance benefits to which they are not entitled.
Another important issue to consider is the monitoring and enforcement of mitigation measures mentioned in NEPA analyses.
An example of enforcement monitoring is a penalty clause written into a contract for the performance of mitigation measures.
Effectiveness monitoring is a more challenging concept than enforcement monitoring in that it actually measures the effectiveness of particular mitigation measures over time.
In addition to the requirements of the Army NEPA regulation, some recent court decisions provide further incentive to ensure that mitigation is well thought out and executed by federal agencies.
In a case decided in 2001, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that "[w]hile the Agency is not required to develop a complete mitigation plan detailing `the precise nature of the mitigation measures,' the proposed mitigation measures must be `developed to a reasonable degree.
The CEQ regulations, the Army NEPA regulation, and recent case law all suggest that federal agencies closely analyze and plan for mitigation issues in preparing analyses under NEPA.