13 Cited authorities

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (1938) Cited 20,912 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues
Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Doe
903 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. 1995) Cited 224 times
Holding that section 551 did not apply because "SmithKline made no representations to Doe whatever"
Mission Petroleum Carriers v. Solomon
106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003) Cited 60 times
Holding that regardless of recovery theory, causation is essential
Cooper v. Laboratory Corporation, Am. Holdings
150 F.3d 376 (4th Cir. 1998) Cited 36 times
Holding that SAMHSA certified labs are not required to follow the Guidelines when servicing private employers
Hammond v. City of Philadelphia
164 F. Supp. 2d 481 (E.D. Pa. 2001) Cited 17 times
Holding that laboratory owes no duty of care to an employee when it performs drug screening tests on behalf of the employer
NEY v. AXELROD
723 A.2d 719 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) Cited 19 times
Holding that a laboratory does not owe a prospective employee a duty of care
Vargo v. National Exchange
376 N.J. Super. 364 (App. Div. 2005) Cited 10 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming entry summary judgment in favor of defendant on NJLAD claims, among others, where job applicant tested positive for morphine despite his claims that the positive result was due to his prescription medicines
Tomko v. Marks
412 Pa. Super. 54 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) Cited 21 times
Holding that plaintiff did not have a valid medical malpractice claim when the IME was conducted solely at the request of the plaintiffs employer
Herbert v. Placid Refining Co.
564 So. 2d 371 (La. Ct. App. 1990) Cited 20 times
Holding that a laboratory owes no duty of care to test subjects because its relationship is with the employer not the employee
Elia v. Erie Insurance Exchange
398 Pa. Super. 433 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) Cited 12 times
Affirming the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant physician because the plaintiff "did not purchase services or goods from [the defendant], whose services were purchased by [the plaintiff's insurance company] to assist it in evaluating [the plaintiff's] claim against [it]"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 365,903 times 967 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions
28 U.S.C. § 1292 Cited 22,918 times 203 Legal Analyses
Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders

Fujisawa et al v. Compass Vision, Inc. et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

Holding that section 551 did not apply because "SmithKline made no representations to Doe whatever"

Holding that regardless of recovery theory, causation is essential

Holding that SAMHSA certified labs are not required to follow the Guidelines when servicing private employers

Holding that laboratory owes no duty of care to an employee when it performs drug screening tests on behalf of the employer

Holding that a laboratory does not owe a prospective employee a duty of care

Affirming entry summary judgment in favor of defendant on NJLAD claims, among others, where job applicant tested positive for morphine despite his claims that the positive result was due to his prescription medicines

Holding that plaintiff did not have a valid medical malpractice claim when the IME was conducted solely at the request of the plaintiffs employer

Holding that a laboratory owes no duty of care to test subjects because its relationship is with the employer not the employee

Affirming the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant physician because the plaintiff "did not purchase services or goods from [the defendant], whose services were purchased by [the plaintiff's insurance company] to assist it in evaluating [the plaintiff's] claim against [it]"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders