Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 When I first tested positive last year, I went into my DEC armed with all the early info and presented a logical reason that incidental exposurures were possible. The board rep. who was sitting in just got angry with me and stated that I was just trying to disprove the test.....well DUH! Now 18 months later and close to $250K in finacial losses I show to my DEC and they are using the mentality that POSITIVE IS POSITIVE. I brought the WSJ article and they asked my opinion....I could only reply that it states everything I have been saying all along. I was 5 months from completion when I first tested POSITIVE. > > I> has anyone ever handed out information about these false positives and > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Hypothetically, Ken, your daily testing idea makes sense. I'm not sure who would be a candidate for this though. If you're in diversion with Maximus, I'm sure you're aware of the contract stipulation that you do no testing outside of Compassvision. Then there's the presentation of your evidence, which would only be considered by a judge in a civil suit or administrative hearing. The board, Maximus and Compassvision would not even look at your evidence. Even in an inpatient setting, it would be argued that you could have drank, as you were not being watched 24/7. And to even get to the point of having a hearing, you'll spend a good $10K on legal fees. I'm to the point of seriously considering pursuing a civil case against the labs. I'm now told that if I am allowed back into diversion and have filed a lawsuit against the lab, they would likely refuse to process my specimens. Bottom line...I'm finding if you want to keep your license, you WILL be EtG tested and the board's cutoff of 250 for alcohol consumption will be utilized. This may be a dumb question but??? I just recently entered deversion and feel pretty confident abouteverything but this ETG test. I don't drink at all but already havehad to throw away a bunch of food from Costco and am panicking aboutnot being able to use Execdrin...truly the best drug in the world andthe only thing that works for me.My question is this. The little that I have read about ETG suggestthat incidental exposure usually gives levels somewhere under 1000 andusually far lower than that wheras actually drinking alcohol can givelevels way higher than that up to 6000??? Not sure of the time frameof that number in hours after ingestion. What if instead of randomurine testing we voluntarily tested ourselves on a daily basis. Ifdone truly everyday with no spike actually consistient withingestion...wouldn't this ruin their own science and give realcredible evidence to pursue a civil case both against the board,Maximus and compassvision here in California or who ever does themonorting in you state.The cost could get expensive and I know not everyone could do this butit may be a start...certainly cheaper than trying to use an attorneyafter the fact.Again, this is the only real thing I fear about deversion...somethingI can't control...I am sure there is a 12 step in here somewhere.Also, when going to your DEC meetings, especially with clean urines,has anyone ever handed out information about these false positives and Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Yes, of course the contract. But I do believe that we can get tested outside of CompassVision. The board of course would not like this neither would Maximus or CompassVision as it may expose some intrinsic problems with the3re " infallible judgement " Of ccourse, I would not like to try and strongarm the board and even if I presented them with this data I would still expect it to fall on deaf ears. However, this is more of a legal protection in a worse case scenario when you know you are innocent...I don't pretend to know anything about law but it seems that it could easily extend to class action status due to the ramification of a test being used out of context. Just rambling again...I think I may persue it just to have a recourse. At the end of the day I have to realize that I am at fault for where I am at but it does not mean I was ever a bad nurse or that the punishment deserves giving up a 26 year profession. > > Hypothetically, Ken, your daily testing idea makes sense. I'm not sure who would be a candidate for this though. If you're in diversion with Maximus, I'm sure you're aware of the contract stipulation that you do no testing outside of Compassvision. Then there's the presentation of your evidence, which would only be considered by a judge in a civil suit or administrative hearing. The board, Maximus and Compassvision would not even look at your evidence. Even in an inpatient setting, it would be argued that you could have drank, as you were not being watched 24/7. And to even get to the point of having a hearing, you'll spend a good $10K on legal fees. I'm to the point of seriously considering pursuing a civil case against the labs. I'm now told that if I am allowed back into diversion and have filed a lawsuit against the lab, they would likely refuse to process my specimens. Bottom line...I'm finding if you want to keep your license, you WILL be EtG tested and the board's cutoff of 250 for alcohol consumption will be utilized. > > > This may be a dumb question but??? > > > I just recently entered deversion and feel pretty confident about > everything but this ETG test. I don't drink at all but already have > had to throw away a bunch of food from Costco and am panicking about > not being able to use Execdrin...truly the best drug in the world and > the only thing that works for me. > > My question is this. The little that I have read about ETG suggest > that incidental exposure usually gives levels somewhere under 1000 and > usually far lower than that wheras actually drinking alcohol can give > levels way higher than that up to 6000??? Not sure of the time frame > of that number in hours after ingestion. What if instead of random > urine testing we voluntarily tested ourselves on a daily basis. If > done truly everyday with no spike actually consistient with > ingestion...wouldn't this ruin their own science and give real > credible evidence to pursue a civil case both against the board, > Maximus and compassvision here in California or who ever does the > monorting in you state. > > The cost could get expensive and I know not everyone could do this but > it may be a start...certainly cheaper than trying to use an attorney > after the fact. > > Again, this is the only real thing I fear about deversion...something > I can't control...I am sure there is a 12 step in here somewhere. > > Also, when going to your DEC meetings, especially with clean urines, > has anyone ever handed out information about these false positives and > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 You can do alternative testing to back you up in a legal proceding. I believe the Maximus contract states that they will only consider Compassvision as valid results. In fact, Greg Elam (from Skipper's old discussion group) made some sort of offer to store duplicate samples for future testing should the need for retesting arise at a later date. I completely agree with everything you are saying. We have kicked around a lot of ideas for how to overcome a false accusation, for once you stand accused, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to go back and prove your innocence with this test. I've gone on observed Antabuse in an attempt to provide additional proof to my board that I am not drinking, as well as (possibly) protect me if I should have another positive EtG. > > > > Hypothetically, Ken, your daily testing idea makes sense. I'm not > sure who would be a candidate for this though. If you're in diversion > with Maximus, I'm sure you're aware of the contract stipulation that > you do no testing outside of Compassvision. Then there's the > presentation of your evidence, which would only be considered by a > judge in a civil suit or administrative hearing. The board, Maximus > and Compassvision would not even look at your evidence. Even in an > inpatient setting, it would be argued that you could have drank, as > you were not being watched 24/7. And to even get to the point of > having a hearing, you'll spend a good $10K on legal fees. I'm to the > point of seriously considering pursuing a civil case against the labs. > I'm now told that if I am allowed back into diversion and have filed a > lawsuit against the lab, they would likely refuse to process my > specimens. Bottom line...I'm finding if you want to keep your license, > you WILL be EtG tested and the board's cutoff of 250 for alcohol > consumption will be utilized. > > > > > > This may be a dumb question but??? > > > > > > I just recently entered deversion and feel pretty confident about > > everything but this ETG test. I don't drink at all but already have > > had to throw away a bunch of food from Costco and am panicking about > > not being able to use Execdrin...truly the best drug in the world and > > the only thing that works for me. > > > > My question is this. The little that I have read about ETG suggest > > that incidental exposure usually gives levels somewhere under 1000 and > > usually far lower than that wheras actually drinking alcohol can give > > levels way higher than that up to 6000??? Not sure of the time frame > > of that number in hours after ingestion. What if instead of random > > urine testing we voluntarily tested ourselves on a daily basis. If > > done truly everyday with no spike actually consistient with > > ingestion...wouldn't this ruin their own science and give real > > credible evidence to pursue a civil case both against the board, > > Maximus and compassvision here in California or who ever does the > > monorting in you state. > > > > The cost could get expensive and I know not everyone could do this but > > it may be a start...certainly cheaper than trying to use an attorney > > after the fact. > > > > Again, this is the only real thing I fear about deversion...something > > I can't control...I am sure there is a 12 step in here somewhere. > > > > Also, when going to your DEC meetings, especially with clean urines, > > has anyone ever handed out information about these false positives and > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.