[ Q&A Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Robert Swotinsky MD
Password: orange
Date: 30 Nov 2006
Time: 15:52:53 -0800
Remote Name: 71.192.169.78
Like Dr. Woodall, I have had one such case where the donor came prepared w/documentation of his inability to provide urine. I did not expect or demand a 3-hour wait. Even a drug testing geek like me sometimes takes actions not authorized by the rules, but I suspect nevertheless defensible. Here's another confession: I also don't wait 3 phone calls and 24 hours before getting the employer representative involved if it's a pretty clearly positive result (e.g., 6-AM, benzoylecognine, or methamphetamine) on a safety-sensitive worker. Colleagues have told me they act similarly. In both cases -- forgoing the 3-hour wait and forgoing the 24-hr/3-call contact rule -- I'm putting my own judgment ahead of the Part 40 rule, and would have to explain why I'm doing so if challenged. Perhaps when DOT put doctors in the MRO role, they expected the doctors to exercise some degree of judgment, though it'd be asking a bit much for DOT to authorize doctors to not follow their rules precisely.
It sounds like we all agree on the issues about the anuric DOT-covered employee, even though we've approached them from different angles.