It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: Xcathdra
And the section of title 49 which deals with drug testing is stated as a regulation beholden to the employer, not local or state law enforcement. It is not a law in the sense that local officials are the ones responsible for its enforcement unless there is a criminal charge against the driver, in which case they have their own interest to start and would never have to worry about DOT regulations.
The police do not act in the capacity for the DOT, they have their own enforcement.
Title 49, Section 40
(2) In prescribing regulations under this subsection, the Secretary of Transportation—
(A) shall require that post-accident testing of an operator of a commercial motor vehicle be conducted when loss of human life occurs in an accident involving a commercial motor vehicle;
(B) may require that post-accident testing of such an operator be conducted when bodily injury or significant property damage occurs in any other serious accident involving a commercial motor vehicle; and
(C) shall provide an exemption from hair testing for commercial motor vehicle operators with established religious beliefs that prohibit the cutting or removal of hair.
§382.211 Refusal to submit to a required alcohol or controlled substances test.
No driver shall refuse to submit to a pre-employment controlled substance test required under §382.301, a post-accident alcohol or controlled substance test required under §382.303, a random alcohol or controlled substances test required under §382.305, a reasonable suspicion alcohol or controlled substance test required under §382.307, a return-to-duty alcohol or controlled substances test required under §382.309, or a follow-up alcohol or controlled substance test required under §382.311. No employer shall permit a driver who refuses to submit to such tests to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
originally posted by: amazing
Here's the weird thing. I think she was in the right, but...
Why was she the only one standing up for that patient? Where were managers, doctors, supervisers, other nurses, administrators etc. ? that almost makes you think she was in the wrong, or nobody in the hospital liked her and were using her as a scapegoat or something.
originally posted by: Sagacity
You'd be hard pressed to meet anyone more pro law enforcement than myself, but this was handled very poorly and definitely stinks to high heaven.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: alphabetaone
It was a hail Mary to avoid insurance payouts. Pretty obvious. They got caught because Bruno went rogue.
originally posted by: lucidclouds
a reply to: Xcathdra
I think the problem here is that they didn't inform her of the fact that the laws are different for commercial truck drivers. Honestly I don't think that arresting officer even knew that or else he could have explained it. I think the whole situation was handled poorly, I'm sure you could agree with that. If he had pulled up the guidelines for commercial truck drivers I'm sure the hospital would have been completely cooperative. Or do they not need to give a reason for what they are doing? Really asking, I don't know how that works.