Abstract
As has been reported many times by the lay press, urine drug testing may pose some unique challenges. The clinical laboratory interested in industrial drug testing (typically known as employee drug testing) should be aware of the many challenges that may be brought on by the fact that the result may be contested in an adversarial proceeding. This is what makes the urine drug test a forensic test. It may be one piece of evidence or the only piece of evidence used in an adversarial proceeding that may decide on punitive or rehabilitative action against an employee. As a result, unique standards for governmental contract laboratories have been proposed from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and special proficiency testing and accreditation procedures have been promoted by professional societies. These standards illustrate the sensitive nature of the results. Because the results are subject to adversarial proceedings, all parties concerned in the testing process should be aware of the legal issues surrounding urine drug testing. There are constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort issues such as negligence, defamation, invasion of privacy, battery, infliction of emotional distress, and others. Laboratories should be especially aware of these issues, since they may be brought in as a third-party defendant to a suit or brought in as a participant in gathering the evidence. The laboratory should also be aware of other legal ramifications such as chain of custody, expert testimony, and the acceptability of scientific evidence.
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF LEGAL ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING