Analysis
Baxter v. Bristol Meyers, 251 A.D.2d 753(1998) Baxter was employed as a dietary aid for Bristol Myers form 1987-1991. Upon being hired she notified the company that she suffered from various allergies and hayfever. During her time with the company she would have incidents of shortness of breath, nausea, headaches and dizziness. In conjunction with two severe allergic reactions to the chemicals used on the job site. The plaintiff filed claims with worker’s compensation and was granted worker’s comp based on her preexisting sensitives and conditions being aggravated by her work environment. Bristol Meyers and their insurance company appealed the ruling that was in her favor. The defendant’s argument was based on the question of whether…show more content… The death of their son was the catalyst for the Begley’s seeking legal recourse against the DOE, his school, and the nurse on duty Michelle Timothy. They alleged the defendants acted negligently by exposing Jonathan to allergens and failing to properly administer medical care during the allergic reaction. All defendants filed motions to dismiss claims all citing there was no negligence on their part. Courts did dismiss the charge against DOE, but subsequently sought recourse form Timothy and The School due to child being in their immediate care and the plan of action requiring Timothy being seated outside the class. Being seated outside the room could have affected the reaction time and ability to notice symptoms…show more content… They claim the plaintiff requested that transport of her daughter in emergent situations be in a private car to a destination where a helicopter would be waiting to transport her to a hospital. The plaintiff denied this claim. The daycare ultimately denied admittance to Claire when their offer of the Knudsen’s providing a personal care assistant to monitor Claire while in their care to monitor her reactions in the centers environment. The plaintiff acknowledges this claim and the fact they she and her husband found this unacceptable and were not in a financial position fund this option. Tiger Tots subsequently denied acceptance to Claire , stating that, “ they based on the prior conversations and lack of common accommodations being met they were unable to meet the child’s needs with their current staff
