INSTRUCTED EMPLOYEE TO OVER-DILUTE COVID-19 VAX DOSES
After the New York County Supreme Court dismissed his “international infliction of emotional distress claim,” but left his Labor Law § 740 cause of action intact, an appeal ensued.
On its review, the Appellate Division, First Department, noted the complaint sufficiently alleged that the “urgent care center,” where P.Z. was employed, wrongfully took retaliatory action against him for objecting to the company’s practices with respect to the purported over-dilution of doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.
While the proper amount of dilutant was 1.8 ml per vial, P.Z. alleged that his employer required him to use 1.9 ml of dilutant per vial. And he further averred that this was part of “a systemic and intentional process of over-dilution to create additional doses and that he was instructed to misrepresent that over-dilution to anyone who inquired about it.”
Since the center failed to “utterly refute” the allegations, the lower court’s denial to dismiss that cause of action was left undisturbed. As for his “intentional infliction” claim, the court noted that the requisite legal elements were: "(i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress.”
Because, among other things, his complaint offered “little more than bare legal conclusions,” which weren’t “sufficiently particularized,” the AD1 thought this latter claim was appropriately dismissed.
Think things are getting urgent, now?
# # #
DECISION