ÿWPC6- É’Å˃f4ÌcÍà…ü’>Æê;<*С½¦VqºÿJ· ¼›Ä’}ÇÑs?›ÔPaìag5ò¥JuRfzð®l(ÐÞx\´UîÀzÎ{iEsÉÂ¥ÑzØj !\RÏ \¥%O-1f1ÛÑ…•¸ß±h±jP?—g8‘Øï+ïc_"@íÏ­dÔÑmàÅJwÕ¦‡³f8,Òà•9ÕêBœ'&µ¤/Ÿ$ÍJ—ETA^ˆž•œQk…½0V^ŒmJ}ÛCc“pU\L" DÃáØÇïôÚßIh}ŸÐT£—=å(çŒeÖ€³#Ú$\;%«Œ¢!p•Ô±& M†#Sgýj×X³æ} ùi̓VZbÔOI—Mßdèm1ñðB»ªz­ Rp±¡C‰-IçûOyÃ.][%’5–¥ÇäÖ!”Ÿ@QXDŠ »4Û{ø9ÂÍ©{wJe?×Ù2,§”¬ÿfíŽ3Ã)»L‘³ûP|l“Ìvð]Dí¦ôŸ_¥ ‘‚†RìêM${4ØFÓóHEà‚¿‚å\C› ä|Ø­GHV±*j_¿jüéì*[‡õB “Ù»z=íPêKÚi¹…LßÐ\ÅÝ:r+õ—G¬ M*¶DÄb %\UNb 0ˆ°^ 8U)NDw’4– zªÒ$ ö  m 0D Æb Æ( Æî Æ´ 1‡z N 72 0c5E˜ 0wš 0ŠN› 0  0´= 0Çñ 0Û¸ 0ï“ 0D‚ 1uÆ 72; 1‡m 72ôH&û nqi#U:Ú%UN&#Áb&b&#(#(#(b+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+(+( 0ë3(3(3(3( B)) 0¤;) D3ß) D-* 0K?*?* ASŠ*ÆÝ* 0¤£+ 0DG, A«‹,»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓŠx+L (í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular˜L-(,&  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5h‡ãCEIMQUY]aAutoList1""""""""i)1)a)"(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à(F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ù3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)h—ãCEIMQUY]aAutoList2""""""""i)1)a)"" >Ý ƒRŸ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÆ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€After€the€trial€court€granted€partial€summary€judgment€Armstrong,€plaintiff€voluntarily€dismissed€the€actionÐ ° Ðas€to€Armstrong,€and€Armstrong€is€not€involved€in€this€appeal. ñ Ý ƒRŸ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÆ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô49€C.F.R.€ðð€382.305€provides,€in€relevant€part:€€Ð ° ÐÌ(a)€Every€employer€shall€comply€with€the€requirements€of€this€section.€Every€driver€shall€submit€to€random€alcohol€andÐ @ Ðcontrolled€substance€testing€as€required€in€this€section.Ð X ÐÌÓ  Ó*€€€€*€€€€*Ð ˜è ÐÓ¢ÓÌ(i)€The€selection€of€drivers€for€random€alcohol€and€controlled€substances€testing€shall€be€made€by€a€scientifically€validÐ ( x Ðmethod,€such€as€a€random€number€table€or€a€computer-based€random€number€generator€that€is€matched€with€drivers'Ð ð @ ÐSocial€Security€numbers,€payroll€identification€numbers,€or€other€comparable€identifying€numbers.€Under€the€selectionÐ ¸   Ðprocess€used,€each€driver€shall€have€an€equal€chance€of€being€tested€each€time€selections€are€made.Ð € Ð  ÐÌ(j)€The€employer€shall€randomly€select€a€sufficient€number€of€drivers€for€testing€during€each€calendar€year€to€equal€anÐ `  Ðannual€rate€not€less€than€the€minimum€annual€percentage€rate€for€random€alcohol€and€controlled€substances€testingÐ Ø(  Ðdetermined€by€the€FHWA€Administrator.€If€the€employer€conducts€random€testing€for€alcohol€and/or€controlledÐ  ð  Ðsubstances€through€a€consortium,€the€number€of€drivers€to€be€tested€may€be€calculated€for€each€individual€employer€orÐ h¸  Ðmay€be€based€on€the€total€number€of€drivers€covered€by€the€consortium€who€are€subject€to€random€alcohol€and/orÐ 0€  Ðcontrolled€substances€testing€at€the€same€minimum€annual€percentage€rate€under€this€part€or€any€DOT€alcohol€orÐ øH  Ðcontrolled€substances€random€testing€rule.Ð À ÐÌ(k)€Each€employer€shall€ensure€that€random€alcohol€and€controlled€substances€tests€conducted€under€this€part€areÐ P  Ðunannounced€and€that€the€dates€for€administering€random€alcohol€and€controlled€substances€tests€are€spread€reasonablyÐ h Ðthroughout€the€calendar€year.Ð à0 ÐÌ(l)€Each€employer€shall€require€that€each€driver€who€is€notified€of€selection€for€random€alcohol€and/or€controlledÐ pÀ Ðsubstances€testing€proceeds€to€the€test€site€immediately;€provided,€however,€that€if€the€driver€is€performing€aÐ 8ˆ Ðsafety-sensitive€function,€other€than€driving€a€commercial€motor€vehicle,€at€the€time€of€notification,€the€employer€shallÐ P Ðinstead€ensure€that€the€driver€ceases€to€perform€the€safety-sensitive€function€and€proceeds€to€the€testing€site€as€soon€asÐ È Ðpossible.Ð à ÐÌ(m)€A€driver€shall€only€be€tested€for€alcohol€while€the€driver€is€performing€safety-sensitive€functions,€just€before€theÐ  p Ðdriver€is€to€perform€safety-€sensitive€functions,€or€just€after€the€driver€has€ceased€performing€such€functions.Ð è8 Ð gÝ ƒRŸ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÆ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔUnder€49€C.F.R.€ðð€40.25(f)(10)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(B),€if€a€collection€container€is€used,€the€technician€collecting€the€sampleÐ ° Ðmust€pour€the€urine€into€two€separate€containers.€€One€of€these€containers,€the€ð ðprimary€specimen,ðð€is€sent€for€testing,Ð xÈ Ðand€the€other€is€preserved€so€that€in€the€event€of€a€positive€test,€the€employee€being€tested€can€submit€the€ð ðsplitÐ @ Ðspecimenðð€for€independent€analysis.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0 - ù-(|G2Ÿ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ t»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÆ ò»»Ô d(|3Á$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ t»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Á$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ t»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ t»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ t»»»ÔÑ8€¾ƒXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îìç tÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ t»îîìç #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓJune€19,€2001€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡X¾ƒX»¼ tÔÌò òÔ#†¼ t»XX¾ƒð#ÔCLIFFER€SAULSBERRYòòóó€v.€LABORATORY€CORPORATION€OFÐ  ` ÐAMERICA,€AKA€LABCORP€OCCUPATIONAL€TESTING€SERVICESòòóóÔ‡X¾ƒX»¼ tÔó óÐ ( x ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òA€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ 0 € Ðà@@øøìàNo.€87436€T.D.€€€€€€The€Honorable€James€F.€Russell,€JudgeÐ  p ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ï` AßÐ ð@  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„02826„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€6,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ï?  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Î` AßÐ Ï Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XæxXXX¾ƒÔà  àPlaintiff€truck€driver€was€required€to€submit€to€a€random€urine€drug€test€pursuant€to€hisÐ Î Ðemployerððs€drug€policy€and€mandatory€Department€of€Transportation€(DOT)€guidelines.€€After€theÐ º  Ðspecimen€tested€positive€for€the€presence€of€cocaine€metabolites,€plaintiff€was€discharged€from€hisÐ ¦ö Ðemployment.€€Plaintiff€sued€the€laboratory€that€conducted€the€test,€alleging€negligence€in€the€testingÐ ’â Ðprocedure€that€resulted€in€a€false€report.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€laboratory€summary€judgment,Ð ~Î Ðand€plaintiff€appeals.€€We€reverse.Ð jº ÐÔ#†X¾ƒXXXæx#ÔÔ#†¼ t»XX¾ƒ¸#ÔÔ‡X¾ƒX»¼ tÔÌÓÓÌò òTenn.R.Civ.P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed€andÐ 6† ÐRemandedó óÐ &v ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ t»àX¾ƒ#ÔÔ‡X¾ƒX.¼ tÔW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,Ð V ÐJ.óó€and€òòHolly€Kirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€joined.Ð öF ÐÌRoger€K.€Rutledge,€Gregory€C.€Morton;€Memphis,€For€Appellant,€Cliffer€SaulsberryÐ Ö & ÐÌCharles€McPherson,€William€E.€Godbold,€III;€Memphis;€D.€Faye€Caldwell;€Houston€For€Appellee,Ð ¶"! ÐLaboratory€Corporation€of€AmericaÐ ¦#ö" ÐÓÐÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ t»XX¾ƒÿ#ÔÔ‡X¾ƒX»¼ tÔÐ †%Ö $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ t»XX¾ƒ) #ÔÔ‡X¾ƒX»¼ tÔÓ  ÓÑ8€æxXdìXXdð8Ñà  àPlaintiff,€Cliffer€Saulsberry,€sued€defendant,€Armstrong€Transfer€&€Storage€Co.,€Inc.Ð f'¶"& Ð(ð ðArmstrongðð),€and€LabCorp€Occupational€Testing€Services€(ð ðLabCorpðð),€for€damages€resultingÐ V(¦#' Ðfrom€his€discharge€from€Armstrongððs׃$×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€employment€because€of€the€alleged€negligence€of€LabCorpÐ F)–$( Ðin€performing€a€random€drug€test.€€Saulsberry€worked€as€a€truck€driver€for€Armstrong,€a€regionalÐ 6*†%)ý Ðagent€for€United€Van€Lines€(ð ðUnitedðð).€€In€1989,€Mr.€Saulsberry€became€an€owner„operator€underÐ ° Ða€contract€with€Armstrong.€€Under€a€lease/purchase€agreement€with€Armstrong,€Mr.€SaulsberryÐ  ð Ðacquired€his€truck€and€hauled€household€goods€for€Armstrong€directly,€or€for€Armstrong€in€itsÐ à Ðcapacity€as€agent€for€United.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àOn€May€10,€1996,€pursuant€to€Armstrongððs€written€drug€policy€and€mandatory€DepartmentÐ ` ° Ðof€Transportation€(ð ðDOTðð)€guidelines׃%×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€Armstrongððs€dispatcher€notified€Saulsberry€that€he€had€beenÐ P   Ðselected€to€submit€to€a€random€drug€test.€€After€obtaining€a€ð ðtest€kitðð€from€Armstrong,€SaulsberryÐ @  Ðreported€to€the€Southaven,€Mississippi€LabCorp€collection€site.Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àUpon€arriving€at€LabCorp,€Mr.€Saulsberry€was€given€a€specimen€cup.€€The€record€does€notÐ `  Ðindicate€if€the€specimen€cup€was€labeled€with€Mr.€Saulsberryððs€name€or€any€other€identifyingÐ P  Ðinformation.€€Mr.€Saulsberry€was€then€directed€to€the€restroom,€where€he€urinated€into€the€cup.€€AfterÐ ð@  Ðstepping€out€of€the€restroom,€Mr.€Saulsberry€brought€the€urine€specimen€over€to€a€table€with€severalÐ à0  Ðother€specimen€cups,€and€waited€by€the€table.€€During€this€time,€Mr.€Saulsberry€testified€that€otherÐ ° Ðpeople€came€by€the€table€and€dropped€off€specimens,€as€well.Ð  ð ÐÌà  àAt€some€point,€one€of€LabCorpððs€technicians€picked€up€what€purported€to€be€Mr.Ð €Ð ÐSaulsberryððs€specimen,€and€divided€it€into€two€smaller€containers.׃&×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€technician€placed€labels€onÐ pÀ Ðthe€two€bottles€and€asked€Mr.€Saulsberry€to€initial€each€bottle.€€The€samples€were€then€shipped€toÐ ` ° ÐLabCorpððs€laboratory€for€testing.€€Mr.€Saulsberryððs€ð ðprimary€specimenðð€tested€positive€for€theÐ P   Ðpresence€of€cocaine€metabolites,€and€LabCorp€notified€Unitedððs€Medical€Review€Officer€(ð ðMROðð)Ð @  Ðof€the€results.€€The€MRO€in€turn€notified€Armstrong€of€the€test€results,€and,€on€May€16,€1996,€theÐ 0 € ÐMRO€told€Mr.€Saulsberry€that€the€specimen€had€tested€positive.Ð  p  ÐÌà  àAfter€the€MRO€gave€Mr.€Saulsberry€the€test€results,€Saulsberry€questioned€the€validity€of€theÐ P  Ðresults.€€The€MRO€advised€Mr.€Saulsberry€that€he€could€have€the€ð ðsplit€specimenðð€tested€for€aÐ ð@  Ð$125.00€fee.€€Mr.€Saulsberry€sent€a€money€order€to€LabCorp€by€Federal€Express€requesting€theÐ à0  Ðadditional€test,€and€LabCorp€sent€the€ð ðsplit€specimenðð€to€another€laboratory€for€testing.€€The€secondÐ Ð  Ðtest€was€also€positive€for€cocaine€metabolites,€and,€on€May€22,€1996,€Armstrongððs€President,€TomÐ À ÐWatson,€terminated€the€companyððs€contract€with€Mr.€Saulsberry€for€failing€the€drug€test.Ð ° ÐÌà  àOn€May€9,€1997,€Mr.€Saulsberry€filed€this€action€against€Defendants€Armstrong€andÐ à ÐLabCorp,€alleging,€òòò òinter€aliaóóó ó,€breach€of€contract,€fraud,€negligence,€defamation,€and€infliction€ofÐ €Ð Ðemotional€distress.€€On€June€13,€1997,€Defendants€filed€a€Notice€of€Removal€to€the€United€StatesÐ pÀ ÐDistrict€Court€for€the€Western€District€of€Tennessee,€and€on€July€24,€1997,€the€case€was€remandedÐ `° Ðto€state€court€for€lack€of€federal€diversity€jurisdiction.€€On€March€8,€2000,€LabCorp€filed€a€MotionÐ P  Ðfor€Summary€Judgment€as€to€all€allegations€in€Mr.€Saulsberryððs€complaint.€€Similarly,€on€April€3,Ð @ Ð2000,€Armstrong€filed€a€Motion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment€on€the€defamation€claim.€€OnÐ 0€ ÐSeptember€21,€2000,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€the€Defendantsðð€motions€and€granted€bothÐ  p Ðmotions.€€On€October€25,€2000,€Mr.€Saulsberry€filed€a€Notice€of€Voluntary€Nonsuit€as€to€theÐ ` Ðremaining€claims€against€Armstrong€and€a€Notice€of€Appeal€from€the€Order€granting€summaryÐ P Ðjudgment€against€Ô_ÔLabCorpÔ_Ô.Ð ð@ ÐÌà  àThe€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€toÐ Ð  ÐLabCorp.€€Saulsberry€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€his€claim€was€preempted€byÐ À! Ðfederal€law€under€49€U.S.C.€Ô‡'X“‹XXX¾ƒÔððÔ#†X¾ƒXX'X“‹¨ #ÔÔ‡XæxXXX¾ƒÔ€31306€(Omnibus€Transportation€Employee€Testing€Act€of€1991).€€HeÐ °"  Ðalso€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€failed€to€establish€causation€in€his€negligenceÐ °#! Ðclaim€against€Ô_ÔLabCorpÔ_Ô.Ð œ$ì" ÐÌà  àÔ#†X¾ƒXXXæxî #ÔÔ‡(X¾ƒXXX¾ƒÔA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€only€when€the€movant€demonstrates€thatÐ t&Ä!$ Ðthere€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aÐ d'´"% Ðmatter€of€law.€€òòò òSee€ó óóóTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€theÐ ° Ðburden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòSeeÔ#†X¾ƒXX(X¾ƒ]"#ÔÔ‡(X¾ƒXXX¾ƒÔ€Bain€v.€Wellsó óóó,€936€S.W.2dÐ  ð Ð618,€622€(Tenn.€1997).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€the€strongestÐ à Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€inÐ €Ð Ðfavor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòò òSeeÔ#†X¾ƒXX(X¾ƒR$#ÔÔ‡(X¾ƒXXX¾ƒÔ€id.ó óóó€€In€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208Ð pÀ Ð(Tenn.€1993),€our€Supreme€Court€stated:Ð ` ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issueÐ @  Ðof€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€byÐ 0 € Ðaffidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÐ  p  Ðdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05€provides€that€theÐ `  Ðnonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€setÐ P  Ðforth€òòspecific€factsóó€showing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€materialÐ ð@  Ðfact€for€trial.Ðà0 ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€210„11€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€in€original).Ð À ÐÌà  àSummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legal€conclusions€drawn€fromÐ  ð Ðthe€facts€reasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€€ò òòòSeeÔ#†X¾ƒXX(X¾ƒù%#ÔÔ‡(X¾ƒXXX¾ƒÔ€Carvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ð à Ð1995).€€Since€only€questions€of€law€are€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regardingÐ €Ð Ða€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€ò òòòSeeÔ#†X¾ƒXX(X¾ƒB*#ÔÔ‡(X¾ƒXXX¾ƒÔ€Bainó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€622.€€Therefore,€our€review€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court.€€ò òòòSeeÔ#†X¾ƒXX(X¾ƒx+#ÔÔ‡(X¾ƒXXX¾ƒÔ€WarrenÐ `° Ðv.€Estate€of€Kirkó óóó,€954€S.W.2d€722,€723€(Tenn.€1997).Ô#†X¾ƒXX(X¾ƒy,#ÔÔ‡XæxXXX¾ƒÔÐ P  ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€determine€that€the€trial€court€held€that€plaintiffððs€claim€was€preempted€by€theÐ ,| ÐFederal€Omnibus€Transportation€Employeeððs€Testing€Act€of€1991,€49€U.S.C.€Ô#†X¾ƒXXXæx-#ÔÔ‡'X“‹XXX¾ƒÔððÔ#†X¾ƒXX'X“‹2.#ÔÔ‡XæxXXX¾ƒÔ€31305€òòet€seq.óóÐ h Ð(ð ðFOTETAðð).€€€The€trial€court€stated€in€ruling€on€the€motion€for€summary€judgment:Ð T ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€plaintiff,€on€the€other€hand,€argues€that€LabCorpððsÐ Ü, Ðcontention€that€the€plaintiffððs€negligence€is€barred€due€to€lack€of€aÐ È Ðprivate€cause€of€action€under€the€testing€is€without€merit.€€TheÐ ´  Ðplaintiff€points€out€and€argues€that€it€is€not€seeking€a€private€civilÐ  !ð Ðremedy€under€the€drug€testing€act€as€is€asserted€by€LabCorp.€InÐ Œ"Ü  Ðcontrast,€the€plaintiff€argues€that€it€simply€is€offering€LabCorpððsÐ x#È! ÐDepartment€of€Transportation€infractions€as€evidence€of€its€negligentÐ d$´" Ðconduct€under€Tennessee€law€and€relies€upon€similar€situations,€citingÐ P%  # ÐOSHA€cases€for€example.Ð<&Œ!$` x` x ÐÌThe€trial€courtððs€statements€were€premised€on€the€assertions€made€by€plaintiffððs€counsel€inÐ (d#& Ðopposition€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment:Ð )P$' Ðâ âÐ ì)<%( Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAnd€so,€Your€Honor,€the€simple€fact€is,€sure,€thereððs€no€rightÐ ° Ðof€relief€under€the€drug€testing€act,€but€there€is€a€right€of€relief€underÐ œì Ðour€state€law€in€Tennessee.ЈØ` x` x Ðâ âÌà  àA€somewhat€similar€scenario€existed€in€ò òòòHanson€v.€DrugScanó óóó,€95€F.Supp.2d€868€(N.D.€Ill.Ð `° Ð2000),€wherein€plaintiff€was€fired€as€a€result€of€the€drug€testing€companyððs€erroneous€report.€€HeÐ L œ Ðsued,€alleging€negligence,€resulting€in€various€items€of€damages.€€The€court,€in€ruling€that€there€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðno€preemption€by€virtue€of€the€federal€regulations€governing€drug€testing,€aptly€said:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àHansonððs€claim€that€DrugScan€was€negligent€in€testing€would€notÐ ü L  Ðappear€to€arise€under€any€federal€law.€€Negligence€by€a€private€firmÐ è 8  Ðis€a€classic€state€law€issue.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€871.Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àÌà  àWe€do€not€feel€it€necessary€to€discuss€extensively€the€preemption€doctrine.€€An€excellentÐ „Ô  Ðanalysis€of€preemption€is€found€in€an€opinion€of€our€Supreme€Court€in€ò òòòRiggs€v.€Bursonó óóó,€941€S.W.2dÐ pÀ Ð44,€48€(Tenn.€1997),€but€because€preemption€is€not€an€issue€in€the€instant€case,€we€will€not€undulyÐ \¬ Ðlengthen€this€opinion€with€the€Supreme€Courtððs€discussion.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€private€right€of€action€to€enforce€DOT€drug€testing€regulation€under€FOTETA.€Ð  p Ðò òòòSee€Parry€v.€Mohawk€Motors€of€Michigan,€Inc.ó óóó,€236€F.3d€299€(6th€Cir.€2000).€€In€ò òòòParryó óóó,€the€CourtÐ  \ Ðsaid:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThis€Court€similarly€concludes€that€the€FOTETA€is€framed€asÐ Ð  Ða€general€mandate€to€the€Department€of€Transportation€as€theÐ ¼  Ðregulations€promulgated€under€part€40€are€applicable€to€the€FederalÐ ¨ø ÐHighway€Administration,€Federal€Railroad€Administration,€FederalÐ ”ä ÐTransit€Administration€and€Federal€Aviation€Administration.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€49Ð €Ð ÐC.F.R.€Ô#†X¾ƒXXXæxx.#ÔÔ‡'X“‹XXX¾ƒÔððÔ#†X¾ƒXX'X“‹j<#ÔÔ‡XæxXXX¾ƒÔ€40.25(f)(10)(B).€€This€regulatory€scheme€does€not€evince€aÐ l¼ Ðconcern€for€the€protection€of€drivers€who€believe€that€they€have€beenÐ X ¨ Ðaggrieved€through€the€drug€testing€process.€€ò òòòCf.€Drakeó óóó,€147€F.3d€atÐ D!” Ð170„71;€ò òòòSchmelingó óóó,€97€F.3d€at€1343„44.€€Furthermore,€federalÐ 0"€  Ðregulations€in€and€of€themselves€cannot€create€a€private€cause€ofÐ #l! Ðaction€unless€the€action€is€at€least€implied€from€the€applicable€statute.€Ð $X" Ðò òòòSee€Smith€v.€Dearborn€Fin.€Servs.,€Inc.,ó óóó€982€F.2d€976,€979€(6th€Cir.Ð ô$D # Ð1993).€€Therefore,€this€Court€holds€that€the€district€court€properlyÐ à%0!$ Ðconcluded€that€the€FOTETA€or€the€regulations€promulgatedÐ Ì&"% Ðthereunder€do€not€imply€a€private€cause€of€action€and€properlyÐ ¸'#& Ðgranted€summary€judgment€on€Plaintiffððs€claim.à È àФ(ô#'` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóóòòóó€at€308„09.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àAlthough€plaintiffððs€counsel€indicated€in€his€argument€to€the€trial€court€that€his€action€wasÐ ° Ðnot€premised€on€a€violation€of€the€federal€law,€he€appeared€to€deviate€from€this€theory€in€the€courseÐ œì Ðof€oral€argument€before€this€Court.€€Mr.€Saulsberry€places€great€emphasis€on€a€document€entitledÐ ˆØ Ðð ðFederal€Drug€Testing€Custody€and€Control€Formðð€(the€ð ðCustody€Formðð).€€This€form€requires€theÐ tÄ Ðindividual€being€tested€(donor)€to€certify€that€the€donor€has€not€adulterated€the€urine€sample,€that€theÐ `° Ðsplit€sample€bottles€were€sealed€in€the€donorððs€presence,€and€that€the€information€the€donor€providedÐ L œ Ðto€the€testing€facility€on€the€form€is€correct.€€The€Custody€Form€also€requires€that€the€technicianÐ 8 ˆ Ðcollecting€the€sample€sign€the€following€certification:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€certify€that€the€specimen€identified€on€this€form€is€the€specimenÐ ü L  Ðpresented€to€me€by€the€donor€providing€the€certification€on€Copy€4€ofÐ è 8  Ðthis€form,€that€it€bears€the€same€specimen€identification€number€asÐ Ô$  Ðthat€set€forth€above,€and€that€it€has€been€collected,€labeled€and€sealedÐ À  Ðas€in€accordance€with€applicable€Federal€requirements.Ьü ` x` x ÐÌIt€is€undisputed€that€the€technician€never€signed€this€certification,€although€she€signed€other€portionsÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€Custody€Form.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àDuring€oral€argument,€plaintiffððs€counsel€and€the€Court€had€the€following€exchange:€Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòAnswer:€óó€But,€in€essence,€we€would€submit€to€this€Court€that€theÐ  p Ðcontents€of€that€container€were€unimportant.€€The€issue€in€this€case€isÐ  \ Ðwhether€the€Defendant/Appellee€LabCorp€abided€by€or€adhered€to€aÐ øH Ðwell„stated€standard€of€care€in€the€handling€of€this€specimen€andÐ ä4 Ðwhether€it€acted€negligently.€.€.€in€the€way€that€it€reported€the€results.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌÓ€ (‡ãx3 Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àà  à*à0h` x` xàà0Àhxhxà*à0ÀxÀxàà0pxxà*Шøpxpx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àHad€LabCorp€adhered€to€the€standard€of€care€then€the€contents€of€thatÐ €Ð Ðcontainer€wouldnððt€have€even€been€subjected€to€any€analysis€becauseÐ l¼ Ðthe€standard€of€care,€as€weððve€articulated€in€the€record,€is€not€only€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthe€certification€should€be€there,€but€if€it€gets€to€the€testing€facility€.Ð D!” Ð.€.€without€certification,€a€curative€affidavit€has€to€be€obtained€fromÐ 0"€  Ðthe€collector.€€And,€if€that€curing€affidavit€is€not€obtained,€then€theÐ #l! Ðrequirement€of€the€standard€of€care€is€to€report€that€as€ð ðtest€notÐ $X" Ðperformedðð€„€you€just€simply€donððt€go€forward€because€theseÐ ô$D # Ðsafeguards€exist€for€two€reasons.€€Number€one,€we€want€to€be€able€toÐ à%0!$ Ðconduct€this€kind€of€testing€.€.€.€for€the€public€safety.€€But,€secondly,Ð Ì&"% Ðthey€exist€to€protect€just€against€the€kind€of€harm€that€Mr.€SaulsberryÐ ¸'#& Ðcomplains€of,€and€that€is,€the€possibility€of€error€which€hasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdevastating€effects€in€the€personal€life€of€the€test€subject.Ð)à$(` x` x ÐÌÓ€ "(—ãxxÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àà  à*à0h` x` xàà0Àhxhxà*à0ÀxÀxàà0pxxà*Ðh+¸&*pxpx Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòQuestion€from€Court:óó€If€I€understand€you€correctly,€what€youððreÐ ° Ðsaying€is,€even€if€you€assume€that€the€specimen€that€.€.€.€testedÐ œì Ðpositive€for€cocaine€was€in€fact€Mr.€Saulsberryððs€specimen€„€hadÐ ˆØ ÐLabCorp€followed€the€required€federal€procedures,€the€specimenÐ tÄ Ðwould€never€have€been€tested,€and€he€would€not€have€been€fired.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòAnswer:óó€Thatððs€correct.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌThus,€it€would€appear€that€Mr.€Saulsberry€is€changing€his€theory€in€the€appellate€court,€but,Ð  ` Ðunfortunately,€such€a€theory€appears€to€be€asserting€a€private€cause€of€action€under€the€federal€actÐ ü L  Ðwhen,€as€shown€above,€no€cause€of€action€is€created.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWe€will€now€consider€Mr.€Saulsberryððs€second€assertion€that€the€trial€court€erred€because€theÐ À  Ðrecord€established€evidence€of€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€causation.€€In€his€negligenceÐ ¬ü  Ðclaim,€Mr.€Ô_ÔSaulsberryÔ_Ô€asserts€that€the€urine€specimen€tested€by€Ô_ÔLabCorpÔ_Ô€was€not€his€specimen,€andÐ ˜è  Ðthat€he€was€discharged€because€Ô_ÔLabCorpÔ_Ô€negligently€tested€the€wrong€specimen€and€reported€theÐ „Ô  Ðresults€to€his€employer.€€He€asserts€that€he€has€never€used€illegal€drugs€and€that,€therefore,€theÐ pÀ Ðspecimen€that€tested€positive€for€illegal€drugs€could€not€have€been€his€specimen.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àMr.€Saulsberry€apparently€relies€upon€the€absence€of€the€signature€of€the€specimen€collectorÐ 4„ Ðas€required€in€Step€5€on€the€Custody€Form.€€We€note€that€the€collector€signed€the€form€in€the€partÐ  p Ðindicated€for€Step€6€to€show€that€the€specimen€was€received€by€the€collector,€was€released€by€theÐ  \ Ðcollector,€and€sent€to€the€lab.€€Moreover,€Mr.€Saulsberry€signed€the€same€form,€wherein€he€certified:€Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€certify€that€I€provided€my€urine€specimen€to€the€collector;€that€I€haveÐ Ð  Ðnot€adulterated€it€in€any€manner;€that€each€specimen€bottle€used€wasÐ ¼  Ðsealed€with€a€tamper„evidence€seal€in€my€presence;€and,€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðinformation€provided€on€this€form€and€on€the€label€affixed€to€eachÐ ”ä Ðspecimen€bottle€is€correct.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà  àMr.€Saulsberry€asserts€that€the€lack€of€the€collectorððs€signature€is€proof€from€which€the€trierÐ X ¨ Ðof€fact€could€infer€that€the€specimen€tested€and€reported€on€was€not€Mr.€Saulsberryððs€specimen.€Ð D!” ÐAlthough€we€cannot€agree€that€the€lack€of€the€signature€creates€such€an€inference,€we€believe€the€realÐ 0"€  Ðessence€of€this€case€is€whether€LabCorp€was€negligent€in€issuing€a€certification€of€the€test€resultsÐ #l! Ðwithout€proper€certification€of€the€chain€of€custody,€as€established€by€its€procedures.€€LabCorpððsÐ $X" Ðcertification€of€the€positive€lab€results€without€a€properly€signed€Custody€Form€could€be€consideredÐ ô$D # Ða€lack€of€reasonable€care€to€provide€correct€laboratory€results.€€Under€the€facts€in€this€record,€weÐ à%0!$ Ðbelieve€that€this€is€a€dispute€of€material€fact€to€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€Admittedly,€this€isÐ Ì&"% Ða€very€close€question,€but€we€are€mindful€of€our€Supreme€Courtððs€admonition€in€ò òòòEvco€Corp.€v.€Rossó óóó,Ð ¸'#& Ð528€S.W.2d€20€(Tenn.€1975):Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€summary€judgment€procedure€was€designed€to€provide€a€quick,Ð |*Ì%) Ðinexpensive€means€of€concluding€cases,€in€whole€or€in€part,€uponÐ h+¸&* Ðissues€as€to€which€there€is€no€dispute€regarding€the€material€facts.€Ð ° ÐWhere€there€does€exist€a€dispute€as€to€facts€which€are€deemedÐ œì Ðmaterial€by€the€trial€court,€however,€or€where€there€is€uncertainty€asÐ ˆØ Ðto€whether€there€may€be€such€a€dispute,€the€duty€of€the€trial€court€isÐ tÄ Ðclear.€€He€is€to€overrule€any€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€suchÐ `° Ðcases,€because€summary€judgment€proceedings€are€not€in€any€senseÐ L œ Ðto€be€viewed€as€a€substitute€for€a€trial€of€disputed€factual€issues.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€24„25.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€LabCorp€summary€judgment€on€theÐ è 8  Ðnegligence€claim€is€reversed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€such€further€proceedingsÐ Ô$  Ðas€necessary.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€to€appellee,€LabCorp€Occupational€Testing€Services.Ô#†X¾ƒXXXæx°<#ÔÔ#†¼ t»XX¾ƒ‡ #ÔÔ€X¾ƒX»¼ tÔÐ À  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð |Ì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.