§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

56 Cited authorities

  1. Lauer v. City of New York

    95 N.Y.2d 95 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 545 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Medical Examiner's statutory duty to prepare post-autopsy reports and report to the District Attorney benefits "the public at large" and was not enacted for individual benefit

  2. Solomon v. City of New York

    66 N.Y.2d 1026 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 720 times
    Referring only to proximate causation

  3. Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

    96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 396 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability

  4. Eiseman v. State of New York

    70 N.Y.2d 175 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 345 times
    Holding that liability for negligent misrepresentation requires injury or damage to plaintiff

  5. Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber

    55 N.Y.2d 154 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 338 times
    Comparing N.Y. Labor Law § 241 and N.Y. Labor Law § 200, which require administrative regulations to provide for specific construction site safety of standards

  6. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.

    248 N.Y. 339 (N.Y. 1928)   Cited 2,024 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreseeability is a factor in determining duty and stating that "the orbit of the danger as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance would be the orbit of the duty"

  7. Holdampf v. A.C. & S., Inc.

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7863 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 103 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding no duty, and noting that “foreseeability bears on the scope of a duty, and not whether it exists in the first place”

  8. Pasquaretto v. Long Island Univ.

    106 A.D.3d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 53 times
    In Pasquaretto, the court found that the college had no legal duty to shield its students from the dangerous activity of other students.

  9. Drake v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings

    458 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 55 times
    Concluding in the context of a different statute that the words “rule,” “order,” and “standard,” in addition to the words “law” and “regulation,” “were included to indicate that the regulations may preempt judge-made rules, orders, and standards, as well as statutes and administrative rules and regulations”

  10. Warshaw v. Concentra Health Services

    719 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D. Pa. 2010)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that Gross bars mixed-motives retaliation claims under the ADA

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 486,856 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54   Cited 41,193 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

  13. Section 40.193 - What happens when an employee does not provide a sufficient amount of specimen for a drug test?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.193   Cited 33 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a) If an employee does not provide a sufficient amount of specimen to permit a drug test (i.e., 45 mL of urine in a single void, or 2mL oral fluid in a single sampling, as applicable) you, as the collector, must provide another opportunity to the employee to do so. In accordance with the employer's instructions, this can be done using the same specimen type as the original collection or this can be done by a collector qualified to use an alternate specimen collection for this purpose. (1) If you

  14. Section 40.191 - What is a refusal to take a DOT drug test, and what are the consequences?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.191   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) As an employee, you have refused to take a drug test if you: (1) Fail to appear for any test (except a pre-employment test) within a reasonable time, as determined by the employer, consistent with applicable DOT agency regulations, after being directed to do so by the employer. This includes the failure of an employee (including an owner-operator) to appear for a test when called by a C/TPA (see §40.61(a)); (2) Fail to remain at the testing site until the testing process is complete. Provided

  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 40.33 - What training requirements must a collector meet for urine collection?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.33   Cited 18 times

    To be permitted to act as a urine collector in the DOT drug testing program, you must meet each of the requirements of this section: (a)Basic information. You must be knowledgeable about this part, the current "DOT Urine Specimen Collection Procedures Guidelines," and DOT agency regulations applicable to the employers for whom you perform collections. DOT agency regulations, the DOT Urine Specimen Collection Procedures Guidelines, and other materials are available from ODAPC (Department of Transportation

  17. 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

  18. Section 40.27 - May an employer require an employee to sign a consent or release in connection with the DOT drug and alcohol testing program?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.27   Cited 10 times

    No, as an employer, 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). 49 C.F.R. § 40.27 66 FR 41950, 8/9/2001

  19. Section 40.151 - What are MROs prohibited from doing as part of the verification process?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.151   Cited 6 times   3 Legal Analyses

    As an MRO, you are prohibited from doing the following as part of the verification process: (a) You must not consider any evidence (verbal or written information) from any drug tests that are not collected or tested in accordance with this part. For example, if an employee tells you he went to his own physician, provided a urine specimen, sent it to a laboratory, and received a negative test result, you are required to ignore this test result. (b) It is not your function to make decisions about factual

  20. Section 40.121 - Who is qualified to act as an MRO?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.121   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    To be qualified to act as an MRO in the DOT drug testing program, you must meet each of the requirements of this section: (a)Credentials. You must be a licensed physician (Doctor of Medicine or Osteopathy). If you are a licensed physician in any U.S., Canadian, or Mexican jurisdiction and meet the other requirements of this section, you are authorized to perform MRO services with respect to all covered employees, wherever they are located. For example, if you are licensed as an M.D. in one state