§Why CasetextPricing

Doctor Fred L. Pasternack, Appellant,v.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings,, et al., Respondents.

Brief

62 Cited authorities

  1. Mandarin v. Wildenstein

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 741 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 1,603 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff must allege a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was "false and known to be false"

  2. Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors

    98 N.Y.2d 136 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 1,916 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that contract requiring snow removal service to plow when snow accumulation reached three inches was "not the type of 'comprehensive and exclusive' property maintenance obligation contemplated" by previous case law

  3. Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A.

    459 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,189 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an aiding and abetting claim under New York law requires "an allegation that such defendant had actual knowledge of the breach of duty"

  4. Derdiarian v. Felix Contr Co.

    51 N.Y.2d 308 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 1,880 times
    Holding that the negligence of a driver did not negate a contractor's failure to safeguard an excavation site, and that "[b]ecause questions concerning what is foreseeable and what is normal may be the subject of varying inferences, as is the question of negligence itself, these issues generally are for the fact finder to resolve"

  5. Milanese v. Rust-Oleum Corp.

    244 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 571 times
    Holding that when motion to amend is brought in response to motion for summary judgment, the amendment is futile if summary judgment is inevitable

  6. Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc.

    181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 200 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state aviation safety standards are preempted but that state remedies are available for injuries resulting from violations of federal standards

  7. Rosenberg v. Metlife, Inc.

    8 N.Y.3d 359 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 160 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding absolute privilege because of "Form U-5's compulsory nature"; "its role in the [FINRA's] quasi-judicial process"; and "the protection of public interests"

  8. Uhr v. East Greenbush Central School District

    94 N.Y.2d 32 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 111 times
    Holding that statute did not imply private right of action and affirming dismissal of common law negligence claim based on same conduct

  9. Drake v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

    147 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 98 times
    Finding no implied right of action for employees under Federal Aviation Administration drug testing regulations

  10. Yenem Corp. v. 281 Broadway Holdings

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1096 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 59 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Yenem Corp. v. 281 Broadway Holdings, 18 N.Y.3d 481, 941 N.Y.S.2d 20, 964 N.E.2d 391, the Court of Appeals held that the former Administrative Code section imposed absolute liability on defendants whose excavation work caused damage to adjoining property.

  11. Section 40101 - Policy

    49 U.S.C. § 40101   Cited 560 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "providing assistance to law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of laws related to regulation of controlled substances" is "in the public interest"

  12. Section 1261 - Definitions

    15 U.S.C. § 1261   Cited 249 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Defining "hazardous substance" as one that is "flammable or combustible," among other qualifying characteristics

  13. Section 40.1 - Who does this regulation cover?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.1   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) This part tells all parties who conduct drug and alcohol tests required by Department of Transportation (DOT) agency regulations how to conduct these tests and what procedures to use. (b) This part concerns the activities of transportation employers, safety-sensitive transportation employees (including self-employed individuals, contractors and volunteers as covered by DOT agency regulations), and service agents. (c) Nothing in this part is intended to supersede or conflict with the implementation

  14. Section 40.3 - What do the terms used in this part mean?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.3   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "employee" including "individuals currently performing safety-sensitive functions designated in DOT agency regulations ...."

  15. Section 40.123 - What are the MRO's responsibilities in the DOT drug testing program?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.123   Cited 20 times
    In § 40.123(c) governing the MRO's responsibilities, they state that the MRO "must determine whether there is a legitimate medical explanation for confirmed positive, adulterated, substituted, and invalid drug tests results from the laboratory."

  16. Section 40.87 - What validity tests must laboratories conduct on primary urine specimens?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.87   Cited 14 times   2 Legal Analyses

    As a laboratory, when you conduct validity testing under §40.86, you must conduct it in accordance with the requirements of this section. (a) You must determine the creatinine concentration on each primary specimen. You must also determine its specific gravity if you find the creatinine concentration to be less than 20 mg/dL. (b) You must determine the pH of each primary specimen. (c) You must perform one or more validity tests for oxidizing adulterants on each primary specimen. (d) You must perform

  17. Section 40.153 - How does the MRO notify employees of their right to a test of the split specimen?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.153   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) As the MRO, when you have verified a drug test as positive for a drug or drug metabolite, or as a refusal to test because of adulteration or substitution, you must notify the employee of his or her right to have the split specimen tested. You must also notify the employee of the procedures for requesting a test of the split specimen. (b) You must inform the employee that he or she has 72 hours from the time you provide this notification to him or her to request a test of the split specimen. (c)

  18. Section 40.355 - What limitations apply to the activities of service agents?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.355   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses

    As a service agent, you are subject to the following limitations concerning your activities in the DOT drug and alcohol testing program. (a) You must not require an employee to sign a consent, release, waiver of liability, or indemnification agreement with respect to any part of the drug or alcohol testing process covered by this part (including, but not limited to, collections, laboratory testing, MRO, and SAP services). No one may do so on behalf of a service agent. (b) You must not act as an intermediary

  19. Section 40.61 - What are the preliminary steps in the drug testing collection process?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.61   Cited 10 times
    Prohibiting testing "by catherization or other means"

  20. Section 40.137 - On what basis does the MRO verify test results involving marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, semi-synthetic opioids, or PCP?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.137   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Pertaining to duties of an appointed medical review officer to verify drug test results

  21. Section 40.171 - How does an employee request a test of a split specimen?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.171   Cited 8 times

    (a) As an employee, when the MRO has notified you that you have a verified positive drug test and/or refusal to test because of adulteration or substitution, you have 72 hours from the time of notification to request a test of the split specimen. The request may be verbal or in writing. If you make this request to the MRO within 72 hours, you trigger the requirements of this section for a test of the split specimen. There is no split specimen testing for an invalid result. (b) (1) If, as an employee

  22. Section 40.131 - How does the MRO or DER notify an employee of the verification process after receiving laboratory confirmed non-negative drug test results?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.131   Cited 6 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the MRO must "actually talk to the employee" regarding the outcome of the test, but if the employee declines to speak with the MRO, then staff under the MRO's personal supervision can record that information before the MRO certifies the test