Drug U/A handled inappropriately by lab tech

[free4all]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

A medical lab performed a random drug urinalysis, per DOT regulations & the employer. The individual who submitted to the drug testing, also observed that the lab tech did not wear gloves nor take the necessary precautions in handling the specimen. If a person has submitted to the random drug testing, and does not do any drugs, but the tests come back positive for controlled substances, can this individual sue the lab for negligence in the handling of his drug tests or what are some of the other options if any could this individual pursue?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Isis1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

A medical lab performed a random drug urinalysis, per DOT regulations & the employer. The individual who submitted to the drug testing, also observed that the lab tech did not wear gloves nor take the necessary precautions in handling the specimen. If a person has submitted to the random drug testing, and does not do any drugs, but the tests come back positive for controlled substances, can this individual sue the lab for negligence in the handling of his drug tests or what are some of the other options if any could this individual pursue?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

when you saw the mishandling of the specimen, and immediately took another test that came back negative for controlled substances, what did the employer say?

 

[ecmst12]

Someone not wearing gloves does not affect the risk for a "false positive". It puts THEM at risk not you. Did you actually see someone adding something to your sample? What kind of "other mishandling" are you talking about?

 

[free4all]

The original test was taken on 03/07/2011and on 03/09/2011 the person was contacted via phone of the test result and on 03/14/2011 this person received a letter from the employer about the results of the drug tests and a list of places that this person could choose to go sign up for drug classes/counseling. This individual did not do another test, because the employer will not accept a urinalysis from a different lab than the one they use regularly. They simply terminated this person upon the first test results and assumed they have a problem and tried to get this person to attend drug classes/counseling at this person's costs. Should this person at this time go ahead and submit to another drug urinalysis or blood draw, eventhough the employer won't accept it?

 

[Isis1]

The original test was taken on 03/07/2011and on 03/09/2011 the person was contacted via phone of the test result and on 03/14/2011 this person received a letter from the employer about the results of the drug tests and a list of places that this person could choose to go sign up for drug classes/counseling. This individual did not do another test, because the employer will not accept a urinalysis from a different lab than the one they use regularly. They simply terminated this person upon the first test results and assumed they have a problem and tried to get this person to attend drug classes/counseling at this person's costs. Should this person at this time go ahead and submit to another drug urinalysis or blood draw, eventhough the employer won't accept it?

look, you are already fired.

now, here's the problem. you are saying you saw thed mishandling. but yet you did nothing. as an employer, i wouldn't believe you and would fire you. and i'd be perfectly within my legal rights to do so.

 

[gr8rn]

So this person has no proof that the UA drug test was mishandled, the person is saying it was mishandled because it shouldn't have tested positive?

 

[free4all]

Everytime this person has submitted to a random urinalysis for this company at the same lab, the procedure is always the same. The lab tech has gloves on, hands the cup to the individual unopened, the individual then seals up the cup after submission and places it in a bag and then seals the bag before giving it back to the tech. The tech then sends off for results. On this given day, the tech had already broken the seal of the cup, handed the cup to individual opened; tech did not give top to individual to be placed on cup after submission; when individual gave the tech the specimen cup, tech sat it down and never closed or sealed it up in a bag to be tested. Tech concentrated on getting all forms signed by individual and when individual exited the lab, the specimen cup was still sitting out exposed and not closed with a lid nor sealed in a bag. This is the "other mishandling" this person observed.

 

[free4all]

True, you are right Isis, this person is already terminated, however if another urinalysis is performed and does show negative results, then this person was terminated wrongfully. Also this person did try to explain to the employer about the mishandling, but employer would not accept another test period.

 

[ecmst12]

I think "the person" is out of luck. If you go for the counseling as suggested you may get your job back.

 

[barry1817]

drug testing

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

A medical lab performed a random drug urinalysis, per DOT regulations & the employer. The individual who submitted to the drug testing, also observed that the lab tech did not wear gloves nor take the necessary precautions in handling the specimen. If a person has submitted to the random drug testing, and does not do any drugs, but the tests come back positive for controlled substances, can this individual sue the lab for negligence in the handling of his drug tests or what are some of the other options if any could this individual pursue?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

\

It would seem prudent that any test coming back positive, when the person states it should not be so, be retested. There are anecdotal stories about a lot of things that can give a false positive. Seems that sesame seeds at one time were giving problems with tests.

 

[cbg]

True, you are right Isis, this person is already terminated, however if another urinalysis is performed and does show negative results, then this person was terminated wrongfully. Also this person did try to explain to the employer about the mishandling, but employer would not accept another test period.

Unfairly, maybe but not wrongfully as defined by law. That is not what is meant by a wrongful termination.

 

[free4all]

Okay, "unfairly" terminated. My mistake. By attending the counseling sessions, this person is admitting to something that they have not done before nor have a problem with, so why would going to counseling help this situation? It will just be an uneeded black mark put in their personnel file.

 

[ElvinMelvin]

This individual did not do another test, because the employer will not accept a urinalysis from a different lab than the one they use regularly.

Why would you not just submit to a retest at the same facility?

Also, for which drug(s) was the test positive?

 

[free4all]

Well to answer your 1st question, the facility where the person originally tested only performs tests per employer requests. This person asked the employer for a retest and they stated "no". To answer your 2nd test, the test came back positive for cocaine. I'm not sure of the measurement, but this person's test came back positive with that.

 

[free4all]

This is a chain of custody issue.