Doctor Fred L. Pasternack v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
New York Court of Appeals
1DissentFahey, J.
I respectfully dissent. I would reformulate the first certified question and answer it to say that, under New York common law, both a laboratory and a medical review officer (MRO) owe a duty of care to the subject of a drug test to conduct that procedure in keeping with professional standards. I would also reformulate the second certified question and answer it to say that, under New York common law, a plaintiff may establish the reliance element of a cause of action for fraud by showing that a third party justifiably relied on false statements or omissions of a defendant that were intended…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. WildensteinNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
- Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLPNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
- Purdy v. Public AdministratorNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Rice v. . ManleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.