Legal Opinion · Dissent

Doctor Fred L. Pasternack v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 30, 2016No. 112Published

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

  1. Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. WildensteinNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLPNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Purdy v. Public AdministratorNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  5. Rice v. . ManleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1876

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API