-6-
Taxi Limousine Comm’n v. Sajjad
OATH Index No. 642/08 (Oct. 24, 2007), rev’d, Comm’r/Chair’s Decision (Dec. 6, 2007), appended
Respondent failed to appear for the hearing and was declared in default. Petitioner failed to prove that a urine sample collected by LabCorp, which tested positive for the presence of marijuana, was provided by respondent. The petition is dismissed without prejudice.
The Commissioner/Chair found there was sufficient evidence in the record to find that the urine sample that tested positive for marijuana had been obtained from respondent and he imposed the penalty of license revocation.
______
NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS
In the Matter of
TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION
Petitioner
- against -
IMRAN SAJJAD
Respondent
______
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JULIO RODRIGUEZ, Administrative Law Judge
This license revocation proceeding was referred by petitioner, the Taxi and Limousine Commission, pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code and the Commission’s Taxicab Drivers Rules. Respondent Imran Sajjad, a licensed taxicab driver, is charged with being unfit to maintain his hack license based on the results of a drug test that revealed the presence of marijuana in respondent’s urine.
The hearing scheduled for September 26, 2007, to determine respondent’s fitness to maintain his taxicab license, pursuant to Commission rule 8-15 (35 RCNY § 8-15) and Administrative Code section 19-512.1, was adjourned to October 10, 2007 on respondent’s counsel’s motion. On October 10, 2007, respondent failed to appear.[1] Petitioner submitted proof of service on respondent of the petition and notice of suspension and hearing scheduled for September 26, 2007, and notice of rescheduled hearing for October 10, 2007 at the address respondent provided to the Commission (Pet. Exs. 1-3). The evidence suffices to find respondent in default and the hearing proceeded in the form of an inquest.
For the reasons discussed below, I find that petitioner failed to establish that respondent supplied the urine specimen that tested positive for the presence of marijuana. Therefore, the case is dismissed without prejudice.
ANALYSIS
Taxi and Limousine Commission Rule 2-19 states in relevant part:
(b)(1) [E]ach licensee . . . shall be tested annually, at the licensee’s expense, for drugs or controlled substances, as set forth in § 3306 of the Public Health Law . . . (2) If the results of said test are positive, the driver’s license may be revoked after a hearing in accordance with § 8-15 of this title.
35 RCNY § 2-19(b)(1)-(2) (Lexis 2007).
The affidavit of Kamlesh Patel, a toxicologist employed by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (“LabCorp”), establishes that LabCorp collected a urine specimen under specimen identification number 0907681574 on August 21, 2007.[2] The Chain of Custody Form contains a handwritten notation under “Donor SSN or Employee I.D. No.” listing hack license 5204984, which Commission records show was issued to respondent (Pet. Ex. 4). According to instructions printed on the form, this section is to be completed by the “collector” of the specimen or by the “employer representative.” The documentary evidence does not indicate the source from which the author obtained the hack number listed.
Despite listing hack number 5204984, issued to Imran Sajjad, the Chain of Custody Form contains the printed and signed name Jason Sajjedu under the sections labeled “DONOR’S NAME” and “SIGNATURE OF DONOR,” respectively. Petitioner’s counsel addressed the discrepancy and stated that cab drivers often use more than one name. Counsel argued that the commonality between the hack number and date of birth listed on the Chain of Custody Form and respondent’s hack number and date of birth contained on Commission records is sufficient evidence to establish that respondent was the donor of the specimen. I disagree.
The Chain of Custody Form reveals that under the section entitled “Donor Identification Verified By” the box labeled “Photo I.D.” is checked. The documentary evidence is silent as to the type of photo identification presented (i.e. hack license, driver’s license, etc.) and whether the identification verified the donor’s identity as being Jason Sajjedu or Imran Sajjad. The reasonable inference to be drawn is that the name Jason Sajjedu was verified based on LabCorp personnel subsequent listing of Jason Sajjedu as the respondent and donor of the specimen throughout its affidavit and supporting documentation. There is nothing in the record to establish that Jason Sajjedu and Imran Sajjad is the same individual. There is a myriad of possible explanations for the discrepancy, including misrepresentation by the specimen donor, as argued by the Commission, error by the collector, or that someone other than respondent provided the specimen. Irrespective of the reason, the discrepancy is significant and causes an unexplained break in the link connecting the specimen tested to respondent.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Petitioner failed to prove that the urine specimen tested was provided by respondent.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the petition be dismissed without prejudice.
Julio Rodriguez
Administrative Law Judge
October 24, 2007
SUBMITTED TO:
MATTHEW W. DAUS
Commissioner
APPEARANCES:
MARC T. HARDEKOPF, ESQ.
Attorney for Petitioner
No Appearance by or for respondent.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission Commissioner/Chair’s Decision, December 6, 2007
______
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION
Petitioner
- Against-
IMRAN SAJJAD
Respondent
______
MATTHEW W. DAUS, Commissioner/Chair
DECISION
A hearing was held on October 10, 2007, to determine the fitness of Respondent, Imran Sajjad, to retain his Taxi and Limousine Commission (“TLC”) license in view of a positive urine test for the use of marijuana. The presiding Administrative Law Judge, Julio Rodriguez, found that the TLC had failed to prove that the urine specimen that tested positive for marijuana was in fact Respondent’s specimen, and he therefore recommended that the charges against him be dismissed without prejudice.
On October 24, 2007, a copy of the judge’s report and recommendation and a letter advising of his right to submit a written response to me within ten days were mailed to Respondent. More than ten days have passed and he has failed to submit any written comments.
Although Judge Rodriguez concluded that the TLC had not proved that the urine specimen that tested positive for marijuana was in fact Respondent’s specimen, I respectfully disagree. In my view, the strong preponderance of the evidence showed that the specimen was his.
Judge Rodriguez began his analysis from the observation that the testing laboratory’s chain of custody form “contains the printed and signed name Jason Sajjedu” instead of Imran Sajjad (Report and Recommendation, p. 2). Although it is perhaps understandable that the signature on the chain of custody forms might be misread as Jason Sajjedu, a close examination of the signature shows with some clarity that the first name is in fact Imran, not Jason, while the last name could be read to be Sajjedi or Sajjadi (Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 – page 6 of exhibits to Affidavit of Kamlesh Patel). Therefore I find the signature on the chain of custody form to be much less compelling than did the administrative law judge.
Several other points of comparison of information on the chain of custody form and the data demonstrate compellingly that Respondent was the specimen donor. First, the chain of custody form shows that the person whose urine specimen was recorded had TLC license number 5204984, which is Respondent’s license number (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3). Because each TLC license number is unique, this fact is by itself very telling evidence that the urine specimen at issue was Respondent’s specimen.
Second, the date of birth given on the chain of custody form is the same as Respondent’s.
Third, the date of the drug test listed on the chain of custody form, August 21, 2007, falls within 30 days of the anniversary of Respondent TLC license expiration date, September 12, 2007. TLC rules (section 6-16) required him to submit to drug testing within the 30-day window ending on the expiration date of his license.
Fourth, I take notice that the particular collection site selected by Respondent for drug testing, 1706 Cropsey Avenue in Brooklyn, is within three miles of his residence as reflected in TLC records (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3).
Collectively, this evidence compellingly supports the conclusion that the urine specimen that tested positive for marijuana was Respondent’s. The evidence was of course unrebutted due to his failure to appear at the hearing.
Therefore, upon careful review of the record before me I reject the judge’s recommendation and hereby revoke Respondent TLC license.
MATTHEW W. DAUS, Commissioner/Chair, Taxi and Limousine Commission
[1] Respondent’s counsel appeared for the hearing and moved to be relieved. Counsel informed me that she had been unable to contact respondent since speaking with him on September 26, 2007. Counsel explained that she attempted to contact respondent via telephone the day before to remind him about the hearing and was informed by someone who identified himself as respondent’s uncle that respondent would not appear for the hearing. I granted counsel’s application and relieved her pursuant to OATH rule 1-12.
[2] When tested, the urine specimen contained 23 nanograms per milliliter of marijuana metabolite, above the cut-off level of 15 nanograms per milliliter established by federal government drug test guidelines and invoked by the Commission (Pet. Ex. 4). Public Health Law section 3306 includes marijuana as a controlled substance. Pub. Health Law § 3306, Schedule I(d)(13) (Lexis 2007).