Anyone here know much about Drug Testing/MROs?
 

I'm wondering if anyone here can help me with this. I'm in an argument about whether a drug test can determine whether a person was on drugs at the time of an incident. Here is what happened.

Joe was working at a construction site. When he was getting off of the excavator for his lunch break he fell and injured his back. He immediately reported it to his supervisor who was upset (worried about L&I costs). Joe returned from lunch and finished his shift. At the end of the day the supervisor asked him how he felt. He said, "not good" but that he would have to see how it felt in the morning. In the morning Joe's back hurt worse than before. He called work and reported that he had to go to the hospital (which he did). The emergency room doctor injected him with pain killer. Work called him and asked him to swing by the office.

When he arrived at the office the secretary was waiting for him. She conducted one of those oral mouth swabs (this part is just begging for some off-color jokes, I know, but it is what happened) as part of a drug test.

Joe was fired two weeks later for testing "positive" to hydrocodone.

The question is: Is there anyway for the MRO to tell when the hydrocodone was ingested? The test was a full 24+ hours after the incident and Joe had received medical attention inbetween. Is there some tricky CSI type science that can not only tell that it was in his system, but whether he was on it at the time of the accident?

I doubt anyone here is interested or knows, but I thought I'd try since I've been surprised by this board in the past.

sounds like he needs a lawyer.

Unfortunately for him, I'm his lawyer.

I think there is a way to test the concentration of the chemical/drug in his blood - but I don't know how accurate it is and I have no idea where you would go to have this done. But it would seem to me that if you have medical records showing that he was given Hydrocodone at the hospital they can't fire him for that b/c they have the burden of proof and they can't prove it was ingested prior to the hospital visit. Could be wrong on that one though...

Tests can be quantitiative and tell the amount of drugs in the system, but there is no test that I'm aware of that can determine exactly when the drug was introduced into the body. At best, an educated guess can be made based on the dosage and the reported time of ingestion.

Why is the secretary giving Joe the drug test? Is she even qualified in giving drug tests? I think she done tainted Joe's swab to get him axed!!

What about the drug tests using hair?

That is odd. Usually, tests are given by licensed technicians at labs that specialize in drug testing and do a complicated chain of custody documentation (if they are don't done in hospitals.)

It has a longer detection range, but it can't tell exactly when someone ingested a drug.

Good point! Without CoC documentation how can they even prove it was HIS swab they were testing???? I consulted with Grissom and Brass and they said there isn't enough to get a warrant yet - keep looking ;)

I left out some facts that happened after the test, but Joe failed to adequately explain to the MRO why he had hydrocodone in his system. According to Joe's employment contract he can be fired based on an false positive drug test if Joe fails to take advantage of an opportunity to explain why the drug was in his system.

What happened there was the company called Joe and told him the lab would call in the next 24 hours and to sit by his phone. Joe's mother was ill (and died shortly after this happened) so he ended up having to go to the hospital when he was supposed to be sitting by the phone. There will be a question of whether waiting by the phone (as it was applied to Joe) was a reasonable opportunity to explain the hydrocodone.

What I'm really trying to get at is whether there is any purpose to even test him after 24+ hours have elapsed? If there isn't a test that can tell whether there was hydrocodone in his system the day before, they wouldn't have a reason to test. Normally, Joe would have been tested immediately after he fell so that we would know what he was on and when.

Apparently more employers are using the oral swabs and they give their key employees a ten minute training on how to conduct the test. I'm planning on challenging CoC as well.

This is the way that I understood it, but when I asked the employer about this they told me the MRO can tell and that is why they ordered the test even though 24 hours had elapsed.

I don't believe them but thought that maybe I was wrong and there was some way to actually tell.

And thanks to you all for your help.

I could be wrong about the saliva drug test's specifics. Since, one of my previous jobs was working in Substance Abuse, I used to be completely up to date on all of the drug tests as the addicts I worked with would come up with a wide variety of excuses for tests results. I'm curious and will do some more research about the Saliva Drug Test.

I'm not a keen fan of the Quote of the Moment that we used to have here, but this one comment makes me wish we had it back. I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

And I'll add:

Sounds like he needs a new lawyer.

Ok. I just finished reading up on a few articles via Ovid regarding the Saliva drug tests. They are cheaper than other drug tests. They are reportedly about the same effectiveness. However, Saliva apparently doesn't contain drugs for as long as other bodily fluids (urine and blood.) To be specific, in general, most drugs only remain in Saliva for 12-24 hours after being introduced to the body. Therefore, that is how they can tell it was taken in the last 12-24 hours. However, there is no article that suggests that they can tell exactly when in the last 24 hours, the drug was taken.

Thanks, this is very helpful as I'll have a better idea of what questions to ask the MRO.

I can't argue with that. ;)

No problem. One of the jobs I'm considering involves doing part time Adolescent Substance Abuse, so I needed to read up on this subject anyway if I do take that job.

Send an application my way, please.

A friend of mine works for Amtrak and whenever there is an accident or mistake on the job they pretty much have to take a drug test before they leave their shift.

Is the secretary somehow qualified to administer drug tests?

From working DUI's and things of that nature its my understanding that the only undisputable way to say if you are under the influence at any particular time is a blood test.

I'd say that they were on shaky grounds. If they have a policy for "post-accident testing", then the test should have been taken immediately after the accident (or emergency room forbidding, as soon as possible). If their policy is a "random testing" policy, then I think that it would be pretty easy to show that the test wasn't random at all. I'd say, get a copy of their employee handbook (if you haven't already) and read their drug testing policy. The company screwed up on when they took the drug test and I doubt that they can back it up. Does it not make sense for somebody who just had a back injury to be on pain killers?