[mllangan1]

While being monitored by a professionals health program in 2011 I was found to have a phosphatidylethanol level of 365 and reported to the medical board and asked to have an evaluation. Because the level was astronomically high I suspected error or subterfuge and requested a copy of the lab results. They refused. (under the pretext that it undermines testing).

I had independent evaluations immediately after I found out about the positive test by 2 independent addiction medicine specialists who wrote letters claiming their evaluations negated the positive Peth test. CDT, ALT/AST, GGT, MCV were all well below normal, my work performance was reported as "impeccable," and I provided records showing I was at the gym on average 6 days per week for an hour to an hour and 1/2. I requested the litigation packet from the agency ordering the test and they refused. I was given three choices for the evaluation-Hazelden, Talbott, Marworth, and Bradford--all 12-step indoctrinated treatment programs with conflict-of-interest relationships with the Physician Health Programs (PHPs). Although all collateral evidence suggested the PEth to be erroneous the PHP insisted I have an evaluation at one of these facilities. I raised my concerns of bias stating I would be happy to have an evaluation but could I please have it done at a non-12 step ASAM facility. Both the PHP and Board refused this (in violation of the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause) and 2 years was added on to my monitoring contract just for asking the question. I went to Hazelden for the evaluation.

Hazelden concluded I did not have a past or current alcohol use, abuse, or dependence problem but recommended I attend AA meetings. When I returned I again requested records from the lab and had read a "litigation packet" is generated on all forensic drug tests. They initially refused, then tried to dissuade me, then threatened me with "unintended consequences if I persisted. I persisted and got the litigation packet in December 2011 which revealed no external chain of custody from July 1st (when the specimen was collected by lab A) until July 19th. There was a fax from July 19th from the PHP to lab B (the analyzing lab) requesting that my unique identifier and a "chain of custody" be added to an already positive specimen that had no date, no signature, and no other information. No custody and control form was present. I filed a complaint with the College of American Pathologists who did a 6 month investigation under CAP Forensic Laboratory Accreditation which resulted in the test being amended from "positive" to "invalid" on October 4th, 2012. I did not find out about the revised test as the PHP suppressed it and reported me to the board for noncompliance with AA meetings on October 8th, 2012 and I was subsequently suspended. In December of 2012 I was called by CAP in followup to see how things were going since the test was reversed. After obtaining an attorney demand letters were written to both labs and the PHP and it was just revealed that the PEth test was sent as a "clinical" specimen to bypass forensic protocol. After realizing on July 7th 2011 that the specimen was collected improperly (wrong tube, alcohol wipe) and sent to a storage facility under unknown conditions the PHP told lab A to change it from a forensic to a clinical specimen. Lab A specifically instructed lab B to run it as a clinical sample. The PHP then reported the results of the clinical sample to the board and misrepresented it as forensic for 3 years. The labs are claiming they did nothing wrong because this was a "clinical" sample and they followed "clinical Pethstat" protocol. Point number 1 is the PHP is not a clinical provider. Ordering a clinical sample necessitates a doctor-patient relationship and that the test is being used in the course of treatment. Point number 2 is that no authorizations to obtain or consents to report the results of a clinical sample as required by law were done. Point number 3 is these are forensic tests and the labs have a contractual relationship with the PHP for drug and alcohol monitoring. My question is this. Can a forensic sample be changed to clinical and then misrepresented as forensic? It would appear to me that a whole host of federal and state clinical laboratory laws and HIPAA violations have been committed by the labs. It is obvious to anyone that this was intentional and malicious fraud. Who can address this.

[smoothy]

WHere does ANY of that have to do with a 1st amenedment issue? And how would it be a HIPPA violation?