LEGAL CORNER
Unknown or Inadvertent Ingestion:
f an airman holding a mechanic certificate performs aircraft maintenance or preventative maintenance duties, either directly or by contract, for a § 14 C.F.R. Part 121 or Part 135 air carrier or an operator conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights under 14 C.F.R. § 91.147, that mechanic is considered to be a “safety-sensitive employee” subject to drug and alcohol testing under 14 C.F.R. Part 120. As a result, that mechanic at some point has likely been asked to submit to a drug or alcohol test while performing maintenance duties. Most of the time, such mechanics submit to the drug or alcohol test and pass. After all, the consequences that might be imposed upon a safety-sensitive employee for failing a drug or alcohol test (e.g., a positive result for alcohol or drug metabolites) are severe. They may include termination of employment and revocation of all of the individual’s airman certificates (including mechanic, pilot and medical certificates), to name a few. But what if a mechanic tests positive for drug metabolites on
I
a required drug test but he or she didn’t take the drugs? What can the mechanic do? Well, arguing that he or she somehow unknowingly or inadvertently ingested the drugs isn’t going to save the day. A recent decision by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) rejected an airman’s “unknowing ingestion” affirmative defense in that very situation. In Administrator v. Hermance, the airman submitted to a random drug test which indicated that the airman tested positive for cocaine metabolites. As in almost every case, the FAA revoked all of the airman’s certificates based upon the positive drug test. The airman then appealed the revocation to the NTSB. Prior to a hearing, the FAA moved for summary judgment, arguing that the positive drug test and the airman’s admission that the test was positive presented a prima facie case that the airman had violated the applicable drug testing and medical qualification regulations. The ALJ agreed that the FAA had proven its case, but the ALJ ordered a hearing to allow
10 2014 20
AN UNCONVINCING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A POSITIVE DRUG TEST RESULT
By Gregory J. Reigel
the airman to present evidence regarding his affirmative defenses, one of which was that he had unknowingly ingested the cocaine. At the hearing before the NTSB administrative law judge (ALJ), the airman was adamant that he did not do drugs and had not ingested cocaine. He further testified that he met with his physician on several occasions and his physician was unable to determine how the cocaine metabolites ended up in the airman’s urine. The airman’s wife and several other witnesses also testified that the airman did not do drugs. At the end of the hearing, the ALJ ruled that the
airman’s claim that he unknowingly ingested the cocaine was not a “reasonable medical explanation” for a positive drug test under DOT regulations. The ALJ determined that neither the airman nor any of his witnesses offered an explanation or reasonable theory for how the airman’s tested urine specimen contained cocaine metabolites. In the absence of the necessary proof, the ALJ found the airman failed to satisfy his burden of proving his affirmative defense of unknown ingestion. As a result, the ALJ affirmed the FAA’s revocation order. On appeal to the full Board, the airman again argued that he had proven his affirmative defense of unknown ingestion which explained and excused the positive drug test result. The Board initially observed that the airman had the burden of proving not only that unknowing ingestion was a legally justifiable excuse but also that he factually proved that affirmative defense. The Board then cited 49 C.F.R. § 40.151(d), which specifically and categorically rejects the defense of unknown ingestion:
For example, an employee may tell [medical review officers (MROs)] that someone slipped amphetamines into her drink at a party [or] that she unknowingly ingested a marijuana brownie ... MROs are unlikely to be able to verify the facts of such passive or unknowing ingestion stories.
DOMmagazine
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84