[ Home | 2007 Posts | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Dr. Steve
Password: orange
Date: 16 Nov 2007
Time: 08:48:52 -0800
Remote Name: 74.10.7.238
To add to Dr. Swotinsky’s post: The case cited was not a case that involved workplace drug testing. This case was discussed in the September 2007 issue of MRO Update (an excellent publication published by A.C.O.E.M and who has Dr. Swotinsky as its Editor). The court initially allowed this hair testing evidence based on the use of immunoassay and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry technology, which the court felt had been scientifically validated. The wife’s attorney specifically challenged the evidentiary acceptability of hair testing, an issue that CT courts had not previously addressed. The Court gave the husband the option of proceeding with a hearing to determine the reliability of hair tests, but the husband/husband’s attorney declined. It appears that the husband and his attorney did not have to take the time to present this argument about hair testing in front of the Judge/Court since the husband was able to prevail based on other arguments. In my opinion, if this argument was made in a competent matter, and with the proper witnesses, the courts would have allowed hair testing evidence. But since this takes time, which means more money, this argument was not made at this time in front of the Judge/Court, since the husband did not need to make this argument. He was able to prevail, as stated above, with other evidence and other arguments before the court.