(a) As the MRO, when you have verified a drug test as positive for a drug or drug metabolite, or as a refusal to test because of adulteration or substitution, you must notify the employee of his or her right to have the split specimen tested. You must also notify the employee of the procedures for requesting a test of the split specimen.
(b) You must inform the employee that he or she has 72 hours from the time you provide this notification to him or her to request a test of the split specimen.
(c) You must tell the employee how to contact you to make this request. You must provide telephone numbers or other information that will allow the employee to make this request. As the MRO, you must have the ability to receive the employee's calls at all times during the 72 hour period (e.g., by use of an answering machine with a “time stamp” feature when there is no one in your office to answer the phone).
(d) You must tell the employee that if he or she makes this request within 72 hours, the employer must ensure that the test takes place, and that the employee is not required to pay for the test from his or her own funds before the test takes place. You must also tell the employee that the employer may seek reimbursement for the cost of the test (see § 40.173).
(e) You must tell the employee that additional tests of the specimen e.g., DNA tests) are not authorized.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case:
Wigginton v. White, 847 N.E.2d 646 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
Wigginton v. White, 847 N.E.2d 646 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 4× “” 49 C.F.R. §§ 40.153 (a), (b) (2003). In compliance with the MRO’s instructions, on Sunday, February 29, 2004, Wigginton informed her supervisor both of the positive result and of the MRO’s instruction that she had 72 hours to appeal the MRO’s findings pursuant to the appeals…”
Phillips v. Quality Terminal Servs., LLC, 855 F. Supp. 2d 764 (N.D. Ill. 2012).
“321 ), and to notify Plaintiff of his right to test the split specimen and to cancel the results of the drug test when the split sample was not available and the test sample was improperly destroyed (citing 49 C.F.R. §§ 40.153 , 40.187(d), 40.201(e)).”
Rector v. LabOne, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 987 (E.D. Ark. 2002).
· cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 40.153 (a). After notification, the employee has seventy-two hours to request that the split specimen be tested.”
Grimsrud v. Dep't of Transp., 902 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
“For example, you may not test a DOT urine specimen for additional drugs, and a laboratory is prohibited from making a DOT urine specimen available for a DNA test or other types of specimen identity testing.”
Barrett v. Claycomb, 976 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (W.D. Mo. 2013).
“Unlike the federal regulations, Linn State’s policy does not permit an individual who tests positive to request a second test of “the split specimen” to be conducted by a different laboratory before the positive result is verified and reported, see 49 C.F.R. §§ 40.153 ,…”
Danzy v. CSX Transp., Inc. (E.D.N.C. 2025).
“laintiff summarizes his arguments by claiming that (i) “[t]he marginal cocaine/BZE levels, coupled with the negative urine test, strongly suggest environmental exposure rather than ingestion”; (ii) “CSX’s reliance on non-SAMHSA-certified testing violates federal precedent”;…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.