Page 1 of 54

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

____________________________________________________

CASE NO. 22-CV-62325

ANDREA RATFIELD, an individual,

ANN MARIE KELLY, an individual,

BRIAN RAY, an individual,

COURTNEY MELL, an individual,

JEREMY GERHOLD, an individual,

JEROME POWELL, an individual,

JESICA THOMPSON, an individual,

JOE TEETER, an individual,

KATHLEEN SMADES, an individual,

MATT DACIER, an individual,

MICHAEL DANFORD, an individual,

RICHARD SPINDLER, an individual,

STEPHEN DUCKER, MD, an individual,

WILLIAM GUBA, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

-vsUNITED STATES DRUG TESTING LABORATORIES, INC., 

an Illinois For-Profit Corporation,

DOUGLAS LEWIS, 

an individual,

JOSEPH JONES, 

an individual,

Michelle Lach,

an individual,

Defendants.

_________________________________________

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

_________________________________________

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 1 of 54
Page 2 of 54

INTRODUCTION

____________________________________________________

The plaintiffs are a group of professionals—mostly pilots, but including 

at least lawyer and one medical doctor—that are victims of fraud and 

negligence. They have had their lives turned upside down based on the 

results of an insufficiently validated, unreliable methodology masquerading 

as science. The defendants’ misconduct regarding their dried blood spot 

(“DBS”) testing scheme—which purports to ascertain levels of 

phosphatidylethanol (“PEth”), a biomarker of alcohol—lies at the heart of it 

all. All allegations herein are to be read as at all times material. 

THE PARTIES

____________________________________________________

THE PLAINTIFFS

1. Andrea Ratfield is a resident of Minnesota.

2. Courtney Mell is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.

3. Richard Spindler is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.

4. Kathleen Smades is a resident of Pinellas County, Florida.

5. Stephen Ducker, MD, is a resident of Sarasota County, Florida.

6. Ann Marie Kelly is a resident of Colorado.

7. Brian Ray is a resident of Texas.

8. Jeremy Gerhold is a resident of Texas.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 2 of 54
Page 3 of 54

9. Jerome Powell is a resident of Georgia.

10. Jesica Thompson is a resident of New Hampshire.

11. Joseph Teeter is a resident of Ohio.

12. Matthew Dacier is a resident of New Hampshire.

13. Michael Danford is a resident of Tennessee.

14. William Guba is a resident of Texas.

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

15. All Plaintiffs are sui juris.

THE DEFENDANTS

16. United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc. (“USDTL”) is a forprofit Illinois corporation with its principal place of business is in Illinois.

17. USDTL is a business-to-business specimen testing laboratory 

that does substantial business with, and depends on more than 50 partners

or clients, in Florida, including, but not limited to:

a. Lab Express LLC, 814 SW Pine Island Road, Suite 306, Cape 

Coral, Florida 33991;

b. Fastest Labs of Clearwater, 13555 Automobile Blvd., Suite 550, 

Clearwater, Florida 33762;

c. ARCpoint Labs of Weston, 16210 Indian Trace, Weston, Florida 

33326;

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 3 of 54
Page 4 of 54

d. Fastest Labs of Fort Myers, 4110 Center Pointe Drive, Suite 201, 

Fort Myers, Florida 33916;

e. ARCpoint Labs of Jupiter, 275 Toney Penna Drive, #11, Jupiter, 

Florida 33458;

f. Any Lab Test Now (Melbourne), 145 Palm Bay Road NE, Suite 

102, West Melbourne, FL 32904;

g. ARCpoint Labs of Saint Augustine, 2744 US-1, St. Augustine, 

Florida, 32086;

h. Any Lab Test Now (Panama City), 330 West 23rd Street, Suite 

H, Panama City, Florida 32405;

i. Any Lab Test Now (North Jacksonville), 725 Skymarks Drive, 

Suite 8, Jacksonville, Florida 32218;

j. Any Lab Test Now (Ormond Beach), 1425 Hand Avenue, Suite 

E, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174;

k. Alcohol and Drug Test Florida, 3785 Airport Road, #B1, Naples, 

Florida 34105;

l. ARCpoint Labs of Delray Beach, 4989 West Atlantic Avenue, 

Delray Beach, Florida 33445, 

m.Accredited Drug Testing, 59531 Brick Ct., Suite 100, Winter 

Park, Florida 32792;

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 4 of 54
Page 5 of 54

n. ARCpoint Labs of Fort Lauderdale (Central), 3221 Northwest 

10th Terrace, Suite 508, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309;

o. Any Lab Test Now (Davie), 4343 S. State Road 7, Davie, Florida 

33314;

p. Fastest Labs of North Palm Beach, 300 Prosperity Farms Road, 

North Palm Beach, Florida 33408;

q. Assurance Testing Services, 2207 S. Congress Avenue, Suite A, 

Palm Springs, Florida 33406;

r. Any Lab Test Now (Winter Park), 501 North Orlando Avenue, 

Suite 151, Winter Park, Florida 32789;

s. Drug and Alcohol Testing of America (DAATA), 4221 N. Himes 

Avenue, Suite 103, Tampa, Florida 33607;

t. Any Lab Test Now (Pensacola), 4761-2 Bayou Blvd., Pensacola, 

Florida 32503;

u. Fastest Labs of Pensacola, 600 University Office Blvd., Bldg. 8, 

Suite 8A, Pensacola, Florida 32504;

v. Any Lab Test Now (Jacksonville South), 9965 San Jose Blvd., 

Suite 30, Jacksonville, Florida 32257;

w. Drug Testing Service Center, 1482 S. Palm Avenue, Pembroke 

Pines, Florida 33025;

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 5 of 54
Page 6 of 54

x. ARCpoint Labs of Miami South, 7305 S. West 107th, Miami, 

Florida 33173;

y. On Site Medical Services, 813 E. Michigan Street, Orlando, 

Florida 32806;

z. Any Lab Test Now (Jacksonville), 13170 Atlantic Blvd., Unit 60, 

Jacksonville, Florida 32225;

aa. ARCpoint Labs of Fort Lauderdale, 5201 Ravenswood 

Road, Suite 121, Florida 33312;

bb. ARCpoint Labs of Jacksonville, 6639 South Point Parkway, 

Suite 106, Jacksonville, Florida 32216;

cc.ARCpoint Labs of Sasrasota, 3410 Magic Oak Lane, Sarasota, 

Florida 34232;

dd. ARCpoint Labs of Fort Myers, 4350 Fowler Street, Suite 2, 

Fort Myers, Florida 33901;

ee. Peace of Mind Drug and Background Screen, 4500 140 

Avenue N., Suite 210, Clearwater, Florida 33764;

ff. Tru Care Labs, Inc., 3520 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 

32303;

gg. Truth Verification Labs, Inc., 1648 Taylor Road, #303, Port 

Orange, Florida 32128;

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 6 of 54
Page 7 of 54

hh. ARCpoint Labs of Altamonte Springs, 774 Northlake Blvd., 

Suite 1008, Florida, 32701;

ii. The Testing Center, 3900 NW 79th Avenue, #440, Miami, 

Florida 33166;

jj. Center for Drug Free Living, 320 W. Grant Street, Orlando, 

Florida 32806;

kk.Access Recovery Solutions, 277 Forest Park Circle, Panama 

City, Florida 32405;

ll. ARCpoint Labs of Orange Park, 1560 Wells Road, Suite 1, 

Orange Park, Florida 32073;

mm. Any Lab Test Now (Pensacola), 4761-2 Bayou Blvd., 

Pensacola, Florida 32503;

nn. Any Lab Est Now (Fort Myers), 13401-9 Summerlin Road, 

Fort Myers, Florida 33919;

oo. Any Lab Test Now (Wesley Chapel), 27421 Wesley Chapel 

Blvd., Wesley Chapel, Florida 33544;

pp. Centurion Testing Service, LLC, 2512 Ironwood, Drive, 

Jacksonville, Florida 32216;

qq. Fifth Street Counseling, 4121 NW 5th Street, Suite 206, 

Plantation, Florida 33317;

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 7 of 54
Page 8 of 54

rr. DNA Profile Inc., 1509 NE 167 Street, North Miami Beach, 

Florida 33167; 

ss.Exam Plus FL Corp., 1511 E. State Road 434, Suite 2001, Winter 

Springs, Florida 32708;

tt. Any Lab Test Now (Ocoee), 8975 West Colonial Drive, Ocoee, 

Florida 34761;

uu. National Drug Screening, Inc., 2101 Waverly Place, Suite 

200D, Melbourne, Florida 32901;

vv.Live Scan Labs, 3107 Hallandale Beach Blvd., Suite 104, 

Pembroke Park, Florida 33009;

ww. ARCpoint Labs of North Tampa, 2901 W. Busch Blvd., 

Suite #206, Tampa, Florida 33618;

xx.Any Lab Test Now (Orlando), 570 N. Alafaya Trail, #116, 

Orlando, Florida 32828;

yy.ARCpoint Labs of West Palm Beach, 5601 Corporate Way, Suite 

108, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407;

zz.Drug Free Workforce, 9781 Wayne Avenue, Miami, Florida 

33157;

aaa. One Source Screening Solutions, 5700 Lake Worth Road 

100, Greenacres, Florida 33463;

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 8 of 54
Page 9 of 54

bbb. On Site Medical Services, Inc., 813 E. Michigan Street, 

Orlando, Florida 32806; and,

ccc. Fastest Labs of Orlando, 2415 W. Sand Lake Road, Suite 

F-2, Orlando, Florida 32809.

18. Douglas Lewis, D.Sc., is USDTL’s Founder, President, and 

Scientific Director. He is sui juris and a resident of Illinois. 

19. Joseph Jones, Ph.D, is USDTL’s COO and Executive VP. He is 

sui juris and, based on information and belief, a resident of Illinois.

20. Michelle Lach, MSIMC, is USDTL’s Director of Communications. 

She is sui juris and, based on information and belief, a resident of Illinois.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

____________________________________________________

21. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. The

amount in controversy for each plaintiff exceeds $75,000 (exclusive of 

interest and costs) and the parties are citizens of different states.

22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants

because:

a. they availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in 

Florida;

b. there are sufficient minimum contacts to haul them into any court 

in Florida for a litigated dispute;

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 9 of 54
Page 10 of 54

c. products, materials, or things processed, serviced, designed, 

manufactured or marketed by them were used in the ordinary 

course of commerce, trade, or use and caused injury to Plaintiffs 

within Florida arising out of their acts and omissions. 

d. plaintiffs’ injuries, harms, and losses arise out of their deliberate 

use of their DBS PETh collection and testing products, many of 

which were sent to collection sites and/or clients in Florida. 

e. they engaged in substantial activity in Florida;

f. they contracted with entities of or operating in Florida;

g. they promoted their services to entities of or operating in Florida;

h. they had continuous business dealings with entities of or 

operating in Florida;

i. their business-to-business specimen testing laboratory

designed, developed, marketed, sold, and shipped DBS tests—

at times “at no extra charge”—purportedly capable of accurately 

and reliably measuring levels of PEth to collection sites, 

laboratories, partners, clients, and/or entities of or in Florida for 

the collection and/or analysis of specimens. 

j. they had a continuous relationship with collection sites and/or

laboratories located in Florida whereby they collected DBS PEth 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 10 of 54
Page 11 of 54

specimens and shipped them to USDTL for testing and analysis. 

k. they own and maintain the website www.usdtl.com, which lists

many “Collector Locations” in Florida where DBS PEth tests are 

not only administered, but often the collection supplies are 

shipped at no extra cost. See, e.g., 

https://www.usdtl.com/collection/supplies-2

23. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to the claims asserted below occurred within this 

district, and even if assumed otherwise, the defendants are subject to this 

Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this action.

24. The Plaintiff’s claims are timely under the controlling statutes of 

limitations and/or repose, and governing caselaw, and all conditions 

precedent, if any, have been satisfied or otherwise waived by defendants.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

____________________________________________________

PHOSPHATIDYLETHANOL (PETH)

25. PEth is a group of phospholipids formed in cell membranes by 

an enzymatic reaction between ethanol and phosphatidylcholine.

26. PEth is believed by some to be a direct biomarker for alcohol 

consumption.

27. PEth is believed to have a long elimination half-life of ~5-10 days. 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 11 of 54
Page 12 of 54

28. PEth’s phospholipids accumulate in red blood cells.

Dried Blood Spot (“DBS”) Tests

29. DBS testing is a minimally invasive micro-sampling method.

30. Unlike venipuncture, DBS collection is performed by the 

individual being tested (the donor).

31. According to the defendants’ the other person involved, 

sometimes referred to as the collector, is really just supposed to be an 

observer of the donor self-collecting.

32. However, more often than not, if not always, the collector did, in 

fact, prick the Plaintiffs’-donors’ finger(s) and collect the sample, not the 

Plaintiffs-donors themselves.

33. The collector-observer is supposed to receive a short training 

session before permitting a donor to collect a DBS PEth sample.

34. All Plaintiffs were subjected to at least one DBS PEth collection 

and analysis protocol. Most, if not all, were subjected more than once.

35. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Ratfield’s first USDTL 

DBS PEth sample was provided in or around November 2019.

36. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Kelley’s first USDTL 

DBS PEth sample was provided in or around March 2020.

37. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Ray’s first USDTL DBS 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 12 of 54
Page 13 of 54

PEth sample was provided in or around April 2020.

38. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Mell’s first USDTL DBS 

PEth sample was provided in or around August 2020.

39. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Gerhold’s first USDTL 

DBS PEth sample was provided in or around December 2021.

40. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Powell’s first USDTL 

DBS PEth sample was provided in or around February 2022.

41. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson’s first 

USDTL DBS PEth sample was provided in or around August 2020.

42. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Teeter’s first USDTL 

DBS PEth sample was provided in or around December 2021.

43. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Smades’, an attorney 

admitted to the Florida Bar in October 1988, first USDTL DBS PEth sample 

was provided in or around December 2021.

44. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Dacier’s first USDTL 

DBS PEth sample was provided in or around May 2020.

45. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Danford’s first USDTL 

DBS PEth sample was provided in or around May 2018.

46. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Spindler’s first USDTL 

DBS PEth sample was provided in or around March 2021.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 13 of 54
Page 14 of 54

47. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Ducker’s first USDTL 

DBS PEth sample was provided in or around April 2016.

48. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff Guba’s first USDTL 

DBS PEth sample was provided in or around May 2020.

USDTL Is the Only Commercial Lab Doing DBS PEth Test Analysis

49. USDTL’s DBS measures a specific PEth species (16:0/18:1).

50. USDTL claims to be the only commercial laboratory in the United 

States that performs DBS PEth testing. 

51. If true, there are no other labs to compare USDTL’s operation to. 

The Defendants Don’t Validate Their Process...On Purpose

52. USDTL claims to be Clinical Laboratory Improvement 

Amendments (“CLIA”) certified and compliant.

53. The purpose of CLIA is to ensure the accuracy and reliability of 

laboratory tests and the public health of all Americans.

54. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) 

regulates all non-research laboratory testing through CLIA.

55. CMS certification of a laboratory under CLIA depends on whether 

the laboratory meets the statutory and regulatory conditions for certification. 

56. “The laboratory must establish and follow written policies and 

procedures that ensure positive identification and optimum integrity of a 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 14 of 54
Page 15 of 54

patient’s specimen from the time of collection or receipt of the specimen 

through completion of testing and reporting of results.” 42 C.F.R. § 493.1232.

57. USDTL has not conducted a validation study for its own unique 

collection process associated with DBS PEth.

58. USDTL has not conducted a validation study or analyzed the 

impact of deviating from the procedures mandated by the laboratory. 

59. USDTL has not done a validation study to indicate the impact of 

pre- or post-collection variables, including, but not limited to, hand sanitizer, 

specimen collection process, sample volume effect, hematocrit effect, 

guanidinium salts, creatinine effect, volcano effect, or the shipment of a 

specimen without a desiccant pouch.

60. USDTL’s DBS PEth methodology is a non-standard, laboratoryspecific procedure.

61. A laboratory developed test can be submitted to the FDA for 

approval, but USDTL has purposely never done that. 

62. At all times material, the defendants knew or should have known 

that these validation studies were reasonably prudent—if not essential—

especially in the post-Theranos world, but chose not to ever do them, or seek 

FDA approval, anyway.

1

1 What is reported to have occurred with Theranos is not exactly what is alleged to 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 15 of 54
Page 16 of 54

63. The defendants also knew or should have known that in 2019 the 

“Official International Association for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and 

Clinical Toxicology Guideline” published a guideline on the development and 

validation of DBS methods which stated that “to assure that the results 

obtained with those methods are valid, it is of utmost importance that newly 

developed methods are fit for purpose. Those methods must have 

undergone adequate method validation and are monitored through a suitable 

quality control (QC) program. Absence of DBS-specific method validation 

guidelines results in DBS-based methods lacking essential validation 

aspects resulting into reduced credibility.”

Failure to Reasonably Train or Oversee DBS PEth Collection

64. The cards that USDTL’s DBS uses for collection have 5 circles 

on them intended for the donor to provide 5 samples.

65. USDTL then tests 2-3 of those circles.

66. The un-tested circles are purportedly available for retest.

67. However, if DBS samples are adulterated or compromised 

during collection, all 5 circles may be compromised or inadequate for use, 

rending the those circles preserved for re-testing useless. 

be happening with USDTL and its executives here. But, broadly speaking, Theranos 

allegedly made certain false claims about its ability to ascertain certain things from small 

samples of blood, and these defendants are alleged to have done the same.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 16 of 54
Page 17 of 54

68. The defendants claim that DBS PEth collection is performed by 

the donor, under observation, “after a short training session.”2

69. USDTL does not reasonably:

a. provide any training to donors on how to provide samples;

b. oversee a donor’s provision of samples;

c. have a system or process in place to ascertain whether a donor 

has received any training at all;

d. provide any training to collectors-observers on how to observe 

donors to ensure collection protocol is complied with; 

e. have a system or process in place to ascertain that retrieval, 

storage, packaging, and shipment of samples back to USDTL is 

done in compliance with USDTL instructions or protocol; 

f. have a system or process in place to ascertain whether a 

collector-observer has any training at all.

70. Instead, the defendants purposely maintain an arm’s length 

relationship with all collection facilities and abdicates these responsibilities 

even though USDTL acknowledges in its DBS collection instructions that “it 

is imperative to follow the steps carefully in order to ensure a proper 

2 https://www.usdtl.com/testing/peth-alcohol-test-labs.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 17 of 54
Page 18 of 54

specimen collection.”3

Misrepresentations About DBS PEth & Hand Sanitizer

71. In “Chromatography and the History of Direct Alcohol 

Biomarkers,” a 45 minutes and 16 seconds video on USDTL’s YouTube 

channel since January 2015, Lewis said that a donor would have to consume 

enough hand sanitizer to literally get intoxicated by it, or perhaps bath in a 

vat of it, for hand sanitizer to affect DBS PEth results. 

72. In that same video Lewis states that USDTL has never measured 

PEth in anyone who started with 0 and then used hand sanitizer, and that it’s 

next to impossible to fathom it.

73. On the FAQ section of USDTL’s website, USDTL claims that 

incidental exposure to hand sanitizers cannot affect DBS PEth tests, even 

though USDTL knows it can affect EtG in urine tests.

74. Nevertheless, the very first instruction in USDTL’s DBS PEth 

collection instructions reads: “1. Collector and donor should wash their hands 

with soap and water. CAUTION: Do not use an ethanol-based sanitizer.”

75. In ToxTime: Phosphatidyethanol Recent Developments,” a 36 

minute and 15 second video on USDTL’s YouTube channel since December 

3 https://www.usdtl.com/wpcontent/uploads/DBS_Collection_Instructions2020.07.14.pdf.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 18 of 54
Page 19 of 54

2020, Jones acknowledged that while a small group of 4 volunteers was 

recently studied, USDTL did not, as of that video, have a statistically

significant enough population studied to know whether they could “rule in or 

rule out” any effects of hand sanitizer.

Misrepresentations About What USDTL’s DBS PEth Ascertains

76. The defendants have knowingly, falsely, and/or carelessly 

claimed that DBS PEth tests for abstinence from alcohol:

a. In “ToxTime: Phosphatidyethanol Recent Developments,” a 36 

minute and 15 second video on USDTL’s YouTube channel since 

December 2020, Jones described DBS PEth as “an important 

tool for monitoring abstinence.”4

b. In “ToxTime: Phosphatidyethanol Recent Developments,” a 36 

minute and 15 second video on USDTL’s YouTube channel since 

December 2020, Jones said that with DBS PEth “we’re 

monitoring for abstinence and so the level found is largely 

irrelevant as any positive result means they were not abstinent.”5

c. In a “ToxTime: Phosphatidyethanol (PEth) Overview,” a 11 

4 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfsR1p87res&t=1s.

5 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfsR1p87res&t=1s.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 19 of 54
Page 20 of 54

minute and 46 second video on USDTL’s YouTube channel since 

August 2022, Jones explains that USDTL clients include 

treatment facilities, license issuers, schools, and courts 

(specifically child custody cases and probation/parole violations) 

who want to test for abstinence and use their tests as “decision 

makers.”6

77. Lewis, USDTL’s founder, has admitted that urine EtG, not DBS 

PEth, is the closest thing to an abstinence from alcohol test.7

78. The defendants have knowingly, falsely, and/or carelessly 

claimed their DBS PEth tests for hazardous or binge drinking:

a. In “A Moment in Time” on USDTL’s website, they say or adopt 

that PEth “identifies hazardous drinking levels (enough to 

raise blood alcohol levels up to or above 0.08% blood alcohol 

concentration).”8

b. In “Drug Testing, the Technology of Recovery for Professional 

Health Monitoring Programs” on USDTL’s website, they say 

or adopt that “PEth is a unique direct alcohol biomarker for 

6 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z79z6WKLjU.

7 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhmIv8q_w-c&t=1s.

8 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/a-moment-in-time.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 20 of 54
Page 21 of 54

binge drinking.”9

c. In “Made in the Blood” on USDTL’s website, they say or adopt

that “PEth testing is able to detect binge alcohol 

consumption.”10

d. In “Breaking the Blood Barrier” on USDTL’s website they say

or adopt that it “detects episodic heavy drinking (5 or more 

drinks in one sitting).”11

e. The Adult PEth Testing portion of USDTL’s website (Testing 

Details>FAQ section) says “it requires multiple servings of 

ethanol on a single occasion to produce a positive PEth 

result”.12

f. In “Chromatography and the History of Direct Alcohol 

Biomarkers,” a 45 minutes and 16 seconds video on USDTL’s 

YouTube channel since January 2015, Lewis explains that 

PEth requires a minimum of a binge, a 6-drink binge.”13

g. In “Why Test for PEth in blood?,” a 3 minute and 41 second 

9 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/drug-testing-the-technology-ofrecovery-for-professional-health-monitoring-programs.

10 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/made-in-the-blood.

11 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/breaking-the-blood-barrier;

https://issuu.com/usdtl/docs/neotox_fall_2015_for_web/4.

12 https://www.usdtl.com/testing/peth-alcohol-test-labs.

13 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJLzsf7qiqg&t=11s.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 21 of 54
Page 22 of 54

video on USDTL’s YouTube channel since June 2012, Lewis

explains that it takes a binge of an average of 6 drinks to give 

a positive PEth test.14

79. However, on the FAQ section of their website, they admit that 

their DBS PEth tests cannot determine the dose or frequency of alcohol use.

Misrepresentations About How Far DBS PEth Can Lookback

80. On the FAQ section of their website, the defendants claim or 

adopt that DBS PEth cannot determine the time or frequency of alcohol use.

81. The defendants have knowingly, falsely, and/or carelessly 

claimed that the lookback window for USDTL’s DBS PEth is up to 4 weeks:

a. USDTL Website > Adult PEth Testing.15

b. In “ToxTime: Phosphatidyethanol Recent Developments,” 36 

minutes and 15 seconds video on USDTL’s YouTube channel 

since December 2020 (Jones).

16

82. Other times the defendants have knowingly, falsely, and/or 

carelessly claimed the lookback window for USDTL’s DBS PEth is only up to 

3 weeks:

14 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhmIv8q_w-c&t=1s.

15 https://www.usdtl.com/testing/peth-alcohol-test-labs.

16 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfsR1p87res&t=1s.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 22 of 54
Page 23 of 54

a. In “Why Test for PEth in blood?” a 3 minutes and 41 seconds 

video on USDTL’s YouTube channel since June 2012 (Lewis).

17

b. In “Chromatography and the History of Direct Alcohol 

Biomarkers,” a 45 minutes and 16 seconds video on USDTL’s 

YouTube channel since January 2015 (Lewis).

18

c. In “Alcohol (EtOH) Biomarkers,” a 1 hour, 2 minutes, and 41 

second video on USDTL’s YouTube channel since November 

2014 (Lewis).

19

d. “A Moment in Time” on their website.20

e. “Drug Testing, the Technology of Recovery for Professional 

Health Monitoring Programs” on their website.21

f. “Made in the Blood” on their website.22

Misrepresentations About Drying Time Needed

83. The defendants’ DBS PEth kits utilize Whatman 903 Specimen 

Collection Paper.

17 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhmIv8q_w-c&t=1s

18 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJLzsf7qiqg&t=11s.

19 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfwGD4IK_Mg&t=3s.

20 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/a-moment-in-time.

21 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/drug-testing-the-technology-ofrecovery-for-professional-health-monitoring-programs.

22 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/made-in-the-blood.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 23 of 54
Page 24 of 54

84. The manufacturer of Whatman 903 Specimen Collection Paper 

calls for a drying time of three hours on a flat surface.

85. But the defendants’ collection instructions knowingly, falsely, 

and/or carelessly do not call for any drying time on a flat surface at all; 

instead, they instruct collectors-observers to “[p]lace the specimen card in 

drying box.” Drying time isn’t mentioned.

86. The defendants have knowingly, falsely, and/or carelessly made 

similar claims in presentations and other marketing materials wherein they

insists that no dry time is required at all.

87. On their website, they knowingly, falsely, and/or carelessly claim 

that their “drying box makes collection even easier by eliminating wait time,” 

but in their FAQ section simultaneously state, “you MUST allow the card to 

dry for one full hour.”

88. The defendants have, purposely and/or carelessly, never 

validated or researched the impact of deviating from the collection paper 

manufacturer’s admonition on dry time.

89. At all times material there was no scientifically reasonable reason 

to deviate from the paper manufacturer’s instructions for wait time other than 

to make the collection process more convenient and expedient for collectorsobservers (who either no longer wait at all or do not wait more than one hour).

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 24 of 54
Page 25 of 54

Misrepresentations About Use of Plastic Bags & Desiccant Packs

90. The defendants’ DBS PEth collection instructions call for the 

sealed drying box and custody form to be placed “in a non-plasticized

envelope or other form of USDTL approved package. ...Caution: Do no 

place inside an airtight plastic specimen transport bag.”

91. However, in the FAQ section of their website, when answering, 

“Can we put blood spot cards into a sealed plastic bag,” they knowingly, 

falsely, and/or carelessly say, “Before placing blood spots into a sealed 

plastic bag, you MUST allow the card to dry for one full hour. Once dry, you 

can place dried blood spot cards in a plastic bag but you MUST include 

desiccant packs to reduce the moisture in the bag. It is highly recommended 

that the cards are placed in a non-plasticized envelope for transport when 

possible to avoid any issues with moisture.” (underlining emphasis removed; 

caps in original; italics added).

92. The defendants do not provide desiccant packs in the materials 

provided, nor is it listed in their DBS PEth instructions at any step.

23

93. The defendants purposely and/or carelessly do not provide 

desiccant packs because they know that should such a pack reveal 

23 https://www.usdtl.com/wpcontent/uploads/DBS_Collection_Instructions2020.07.14.pdf.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 25 of 54
Page 26 of 54

additional humidity, they would have to discard the sample card altogether.

94. The defendants have purposely and/or carelessly not developed 

a system or protocol to ensure that their employees or agents who receive 

samples confirm that they were shipped in compliance with their 

expectations. 

95. The defendants have a pattern, practice, routine, and/or habit of 

accepting samples that they know or reasonably should know were collected 

and/or shipped in violation of their instructions or protocols.

There is No Evidence-Based Consensus on Cutoff Levels

96. What makes a DBS PEth sample “positive” or “negative”? 

97. It depends on what cutoff levels are used in the laboratory to 

indicate a positive test result.

a. “Drug Testing, the Technology of Recovery for Professional 

Health Monitoring Programs” on USDTL’s website.24

98. The defendants knowingly, purposely, and/or carelessly utilize a 

20 ng/mL cutoff.

99. They know or reasonably should have known that their cutoff 

level is not supported by a convincing evidence base or consensus in the 

24 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/drug-testing-the-technology-ofrecovery-for-professional-health-monitoring-programs.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 26 of 54
Page 27 of 54

forensic, laboratory, or clinical scientific community.

100. In an April 2020 research article co-authored by Jones titled,

“The Roles of Phosphatidylethanol, Ethyl Glucuronide, and Ethyl Sulfate in 

Identifying Alcohol Consumption Among Participants in Professionals Health 

Programs,” it was found that, “absent an evidence-based consensus on 

abstinence cutoffs for PEth and EtS, we were unable to assess the 

sensitivities and specificities of the biomarkers.”

101. That article also says, “it is unknown whether incidental alcohol 

exposures can produce suprathreshold PEth concentrations, given 

interindividual differences.”

102. USDTL’s cutoff level of 20 ng/mL is arbitrary and was arbitrarily, 

knowingly, and/or carelessly chosen.

103. When the defendants first tested DBS PEth in Uruguay, they got 

so many “positive” samples (compared to other immunoassays) that they 

thought something was wrong. They couldn’t figure it out or explain why.

Misrepresentations About Lack of False Positives

104. At all times material, the defendants knowingly, falsely, and/or 

carelessly claim(ed) their DBS PEth has no known false positives.

a. See, e.g., “Breaking the Blood Barrier” on their website.25

25 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/breaking-the-blood-barrier;

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 27 of 54
Page 28 of 54

105. At all times material, the defendants knew, were aware of, and/or 

should have known or been aware of false positives by reports, claims, 

lawsuits, and/or internal investigations.

106. Additionally, the defendants knew, were aware of, and/or should 

have known about external reports, claims, studies, and investigations 

revealing contributing factors to false positives.

107. This includes, but is not limited to, recent studies that show, for 

example, that “vapors of alcohols during the blood spot drying process” are 

a possible source for false positives” and even conclude that “[e]xperiemtns 

with drying blood spots in alcohol vapor showed the influence on the PEth 

quantiation which cannot be ignored (the source of false positive results)” 

[a]lcohol-contaniing means for sanitizing workplaces where DBS is drying 

should be removed due to influence on the sample and as a consequence 

on the PEth quantition.” See e.g., False Positive Results of 

Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) Quantitation in Dried Blood Spots (DBS): The 

Influence of Alcohol Vapors, September 7, 2022, 

https://www.mdpi.com/2297-8739/9/9/250.

108. Despite their claims that there are no known false positives, the 

defendants knew, were aware of, and/or should have known or been aware 

https://issuu.com/usdtl/docs/neotox_fall_2015_for_web/4.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 28 of 54
Page 29 of 54

of many reasons why test results may be wrong (including showing as a false 

positive) or need further investigation (e.g., inconsistent cutoff 

standardization, lack of proper expertise, and unqualified or insufficiently 

trained personnel along the chain from collection through analysis).

109. Nevertheless, the defendants knowingly, falsely, and/or careless 

claim that whereas other direct alcohol biomarkers like EtG and EtS found in 

urine and hair samples can “be problematic,” their DBS PEth “does not suffer 

from any of these issues.”

a. “Made in the Blood” on their website.26

110. They also claim that it is impossible to adulterate a DBS sample.

a. “Made in the Blood” on their website.27

111. The defendants also knowingly, falsely, and/or carelessly claim

to have reviewed over 25,000 articles, none of which report anything other 

than consumption of ethanol resulting in PEth results in samples.

a. Adult PEth Testing>Testing Details>FAQ of their website.

28

112. But, at all times material, the defendants knew, were aware of, 

and/or should have known or been aware of that there were or are instances 

of something other than consumption of ethanol resulting in PEth results.

26 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/made-in-the-blood.

27 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/made-in-the-blood.

28 https://www.usdtl.com/testing/peth-alcohol-test-labs.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 29 of 54
Page 30 of 54

113. The defendants also knew, were aware of, and/or should have 

known or been aware of that there are not even 25,000 articles studying 

whether anything other than consumption of ethanol creates PEth results.

114. The defendants knowingly, falsely, and/or carelessly promoted 

studies they knew did not analyze whether something other than 

consumption of ethanol resulted in PEth results in samples for the 

proposition that something other than consumption of ethanol cannot result 

in PEth results in samples. 

115. The defendants knowingly, falsely, and/or carelessly claim that 

use of a product with isopropanol (rubbing alcohol) cannot explain a positive 

PEth result.

a. Adult PEth Testing>Testing Details>FAQ on their website.

29

116. At all times material, the defendants knew, were aware of, and/or 

should have known or been aware that they lacked sufficiently reliable data 

to make this representation or that it was untrue. 

117. The defendants knowingly, falsely, and/or carelessly claim that 

whereas studies indicate that low-level positive EtG/EtS results can be 

produced in urine samples by certain agents like hand sanitizers and mouth 

wash (incidental exposure), this is impossible with PEth tests.

29 https://www.usdtl.com/testing/peth-alcohol-test-labs.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 30 of 54
Page 31 of 54

a. Adult PEth Testing>Testing Details>FAQ on their website.

30

118. The defendants knowingly and/or carelessly don’t have a system 

or process for internal review to determine whether it produces inconsistent 

results for donors over time, including, but not limited to, when separate 

samples from the same donor on the same day produce positive and 

negative results.

Drug Testing is a Profit Center

119. The defendants know drug/alcohol testing is a “profit center.”

a. “Drug Testing, the Technology of Recovery for Professional 

Health Monitoring Programs” on their website.31

120. They do commercial DBS PEth testing to generate profit.

121. No other laboratories do commercial DBS PEth testing.

Litigation Support for Clients

122. The defendants know that some of their DBS PEth results are 

contested and, to protect their profit-generating methodology, offers to assist 

treatment facilities, license issuers, schools, airlines, and others who use 

their tests for determining abstinence or as other “decision makers.”

123. As part of this litigation support, the defendants provide litigation 

30 https://www.usdtl.com/testing/peth-alcohol-test-labs.

31 https://www.usdtl.com/media/mediaarticles/drug-testing-the-technology-ofrecovery-for-professional-health-monitoring-programs.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 31 of 54
Page 32 of 54

packages, letters of interpretation, and expert testimony.

USDTL’s YouTube Channel

124. The defendants maintain a YouTube channel with the URL

https://www.youtube.com/c/Usdtl.

125. They purposely turn off the ability for viewers to comment on any 

of the content it uploads to that YouTube channel.

Other Statements by Douglas Lewis

126. Lewis is a “lab guy” that doesn’t “deal with people.”

a. “Chromatography and the History of Direct Alcohol Biomarkers,” 

a 45 minutes and 16 seconds video on USDTL’s YouTube 

channel since January 2015.

32

127. Lewis “steal[s] ideas.” He does not come up with them on his 

own. He looks to others’ research and tries to “weasel them into our work.”

a. “Chromatography and the History of Direct Alcohol Biomarkers,” 

a 45 minutes and 16 seconds video on USDTL’s YouTube 

channel since January 2015.33

128. Lewis admits that if you cannot differentiate false positives from 

32 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJLzsf7qiqg&t=11s.

33 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJLzsf7qiqg&t=11s.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 32 of 54
Page 33 of 54

real positives then, at best, the methodology used is “a very expensive 

screening test that needs to be confirmed by another method.”

a. “Chromatography and the History of Direct Alcohol Biomarkers,” 

a 45 minutes and 16 seconds video on USDTL’s YouTube 

channel since January 2015.34

129. Lewis has pattern, history, and modus operandi of being “gungho” about certain methodologies that look good at first but then, years later, 

realizing “oops” they’re not.

a. “Chromatography and the History of Direct Alcohol Biomarkers,” 

a 45 minutes and 16 seconds video on USDTL’s YouTube 

channel since January 2015.35

130. Lewis claims that DBS is “a gamechanger in the world of alcohol 

biomarkers.”

a. “Chromatography and the History of Direct Alcohol Biomarkers,” 

a 45 minutes and 16 seconds video on USDTL’s YouTube 

channel since January 2015.36

Urine, Hair, and Nail EtG and EtS Tests

34 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJLzsf7qiqg&t=11s.

35 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJLzsf7qiqg&t=11s.

36 https://www.usdtl.com/media/peth-resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJLzsf7qiqg&t=11s.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 33 of 54
Page 34 of 54

131. Ethyl glucuronide (EtG) and ethyl sulfate (EtS) are minor alcohol 

metabolites detectable in body fluids following alcohol consumption.

132. In urine, EtG can be detected for 24 hours or more after one or 

two alcoholic beverages and for as long as 2–4 days after heavier use.

133. Urine concentrations of these polar metabolites exceed those in 

blood and saliva.

134. Hair differs from urine because of its ability to serve as a longterm storage vessel of foreign substances.

135. Unlike hair concentration for drugs, EtG concentration in hair is 

not affected by hair color. However, EtG levels may vary among individuals, 

and factors that may contribute to such variability include but are not 

necessarily limited to gender, age and ethnic group.

136. Nails (specifically toenails) are comparable and in some cases 

superior to hair in mean concentrations.

137. EtG levels in both hair and nails may be affected by exposure to 

ethanol-containing products such as mouthwashes and hand sanitizers.

138. Alcohol biomarkers in general should not be used as the only 

determinant of alcohol use, including potentially problematic use.

COUNT I: FRAUD

(as to Defendant, United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc.)

139. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 34 of 54
Page 35 of 54

140. USDTL made false statements on its website, in marketing 

materials, and through its executives, regarding material facts about the 

purpose, reliability, and efficacy of its DBS PEth testing scheme.

141. USDTL knew or should have known these statements were false.

142. USDTL intended to induce collection sites, partners, clients, 

agencies, governments, employers, courts, and people, including Plaintiffs, 

to rely and/or act on those statements and their DBS PEth testing scheme.

143. Collection sites, partners, clients, agencies, governments, 

employers, courts, and people, including Plaintiffs, relied and/or acted on 

those statements and used USDTL’s DBS PEth testing scheme. 

144. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result, Plaintiffs suffered 

damages in justifiable reliance on USDTL’s false statements and 

representations, including pain; suffering; mental anguish; lacerations;

extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or diminishment of the ability to 

enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; damaged reputation; lost wages or 

earnings or earning opportunities in the past; inability or diminishment of 

future earning capacity or earning opportunities in the future; legal fees; 

expert fees; administrative fees; licensure fees; expenses related to mental 

health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or substance abuse treatment; and expenses 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 35 of 54
Page 36 of 54

related to seeking administrative and/or employment related review, 

appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc. for compensatory damages in 

an amount exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs; punitive 

damages; and a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

COUNT II: FRAUD

(as to Defendant, Douglas Lewis)

145. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

146. Mr. Lewis made false statements regarding material facts about 

the purpose, reliability, and efficacy of USDTL’s DBS PEth testing scheme.

147. Mr. Lewis knew or should have known these statements were 

false.

148. Mr. Lewis intended to induce USDTL’s collection sites, partners, 

clients, agencies, governments, employers, courts, and people, including 

Plaintiffs, to rely and/or act on those statements and use the DBS PEth 

testing scheme in order to generate revenue and, ultimately, profit which 

would result in his personal financial gain.

149. Collection sites, partners, clients, agencies, governments, 

employers, courts, and people, including Plaintiffs, relied and/or acted on his

statements and used USDTL’s DBS PEth testing scheme. 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 36 of 54
Page 37 of 54

150. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result, Plaintiffs suffered 

damages in justifiable reliance on Mr. Lewis’ false statements and 

representations, including pain; suffering; mental anguish; lacerations; 

extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or diminishment of the ability to 

enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; damaged reputation; lost wages or 

earnings or earning opportunities in the past; inability or diminishment of 

future earning capacity or earning opportunities in the future; legal fees; 

expert fees; administrative fees; licensure fees; expenses related to mental 

health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or substance abuse treatment; and expenses 

related to seeking administrative and/or employment related review, 

appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

Douglas Lewis for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000, 

exclusive of interests and costs; punitive damages; and a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable.

COUNT III: FRAUD

(as to Defendant, Joseph Jones)

151. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

152. Dr. Jones made false statements regarding material facts about 

the purpose, reliability, and efficacy of USDTL’s DBS PEth testing scheme.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 37 of 54
Page 38 of 54

153. Dr. Jones knew or should have known these statements were 

false.

154. Dr. Jones intended to induce USDTL’s collection sites, partners, 

clients, agencies, governments, employers, courts, and people, including 

Plaintiffs, to rely and/or act on those statements and use the DBS PEth 

testing scheme in order to generate revenue and, ultimately, profit which 

would result in his personal financial gain.

155. Collection sites, partners, clients, agencies, governments, 

employers, courts, and people, including Plaintiffs, relied and/or acted on his 

statements and used USDTL’s DBS PEth testing scheme. 

156. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result, Plaintiffs suffered 

damages in justifiable reliance on Mr. Lewis’ false statements and 

representations, including pain; suffering; mental anguish; lacerations; 

extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or diminishment of the ability to 

enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; damaged reputation; lost wages or 

earnings or earning opportunities in the past; inability or diminishment of 

future earning capacity or earning opportunities in the future; legal fees; 

expert fees; administrative fees; licensure fees; expenses related to mental 

health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or substance abuse treatment; and expenses 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 38 of 54
Page 39 of 54

related to seeking administrative and/or employment related review, 

appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

Joseph Jones for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000, 

exclusive of interests and costs; punitive damages; and a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable.

COUNT IV: FRAUD

(as to Defendant, Michelle Lach)

157. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

158. Ms. Lach controlled the content that was published on USDTL’s 

website, YouTube and other online media channels and outlets, and written 

materials.

159. Ms. Lach knew of USDTL’s and/or Mr. Lewis’ and/or Dr. Jones’

false statements regarding material facts about the purpose, reliability, and 

efficacy of USDTL’s DBS PEth testing scheme, but nevertheless published 

and promoted them by whatever means possible.

160. Ms. Lach knew or should have known these statements were 

false.

161. Ms. Lach intended to induce USDTL’s collection sites, partners, 

clients, agencies, governments, employers, courts, and people, including 

Plaintiffs, to rely and/or act on those statements and use the DBS PEth 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 39 of 54
Page 40 of 54

testing scheme in order to generate revenue and, ultimately, profit which 

would result in her personal financial gain.

162. Collection sites, partners, clients, agencies, governments, 

employers, courts, and people, including Plaintiffs, relied and/or acted on his 

statements and used USDTL’s DBS PEth testing scheme. 

163. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result, Plaintiffs suffered 

damages in justifiable reliance on the aforementioned false statements and 

representations, including pain; suffering; mental anguish; lacerations; 

extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or diminishment of the ability to 

enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; damaged reputation; lost wages or 

earnings or earning opportunities in the past; inability or diminishment of 

future earning capacity or earning opportunities in the future; legal fees; 

expert fees; administrative fees; licensure fees; expenses related to mental 

health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or substance abuse treatment; and expenses 

related to seeking administrative and/or employment related review, 

appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against Ms. 

Lach for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000, exclusive 

of interests and costs; punitive damages; and a trial by jury on all issues so 

triable.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 40 of 54
Page 41 of 54

COUNT V: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(as to Defendant, United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc.)

164. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

165. USDTL owed a duty to people like Plaintiffs to reasonably, 

carefully, and prudently research, develop, test, market, promote, distribute, 

and utilize its DBS PEth testing and laboratory analyses scheme.

166. USDTL breached the aforementioned duties. 

167. Each Plaintiff suffered a physical injury (to wit: puncture or 

laceration of their flesh and extraction of their blood), most if not all more 

than once, when using the Defendants’ DBS PEth testing kits.

168. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Plaintiffs’ use of 

the Defendants’ DBS PEth testing kits, and USDTL’s breaches of duty, each 

plaintiff sustained psychological trauma; pain; suffering; mental anguish; 

lacerations; extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or diminishment of 

the ability to enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; damaged reputation; lost 

wages or earnings or earning opportunities in the past; inability or 

diminishment of future earning capacity or earning opportunities in the future; 

legal fees; expert fees; administrative fees; licensure fees; expenses related 

to mental health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or substance abuse treatment; and 

expenses related to seeking administrative and/or employment related 

review, appeals, or reconsideration.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 41 of 54
Page 42 of 54

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc. for compensatory damages in 

an amount exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs; punitive 

damages; and a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

COUNT VI: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(as to Defendant, Douglas Lewis)

169. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

170. Mr. Lewis owed a duty to people like Plaintiffs to reasonably, 

carefully, and prudently research, develop, test, market, promote, distribute, 

and utilize USDTL’s DBS PEth testing and laboratory analyses scheme.

171. Mr. Lewis breached the aforementioned duties. 

172. Each Plaintiff suffered a physical injury (to wit: puncture or 

laceration of their flesh and extraction of their blood), most if not all more 

than once, when using the Defendants’ DBS PEth testing kits.

173. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Plaintiffs’ use of 

the Defendants’ DBS PEth testing kits, and Mr. Lewis’ breaches of duty, each 

plaintiff sustained psychological trauma; pain; suffering; mental anguish; 

lacerations; extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or diminishment of 

the ability to enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; damaged reputation; lost 

wages or earnings or earning opportunities in the past; inability or 

diminishment of future earning capacity or earning opportunities in the future; 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 42 of 54
Page 43 of 54

legal fees; expert fees; administrative fees; licensure fees; expenses related 

to mental health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or substance abuse treatment; and 

expenses related to seeking administrative and/or employment related 

review, appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

Douglas Lewis for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000, 

exclusive of interests and costs; punitive damages; and a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable.

COUNT VII: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(as to Defendant, Joseph Jones)

174. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

175. Dr. Jones owed a duty to people like Plaintiffs to reasonably, 

carefully, and prudently research, develop, test, market, promote, distribute, 

and utilize USDTL’s DBS PEth testing and laboratory analyses scheme.

176. Dr. Jones breached the aforementioned duties. 

177. Each Plaintiff suffered a physical injury (to wit: puncture or 

laceration of their flesh and extraction of their blood), most if not all more 

than once, when using the Defendants’ DBS PEth testing kits.

178. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Plaintiffs’ use of 

the Defendants’ DBS PEth testing kits, and Dr. Jones’ breaches of duty, each 

plaintiff sustained psychological trauma; pain; suffering; mental anguish; 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 43 of 54
Page 44 of 54

lacerations; extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or diminishment of 

the ability to enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; damaged reputation; lost 

wages or earnings or earning opportunities in the past; inability or 

diminishment of future earning capacity or earning opportunities in the future; 

legal fees; expert fees; administrative fees; licensure fees; expenses related 

to mental health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or substance abuse treatment; and 

expenses related to seeking administrative and/or employment related 

review, appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

Joseph Jones for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000, 

exclusive of interests and costs; punitive damages; and a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable.

COUNT VIII: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(as to Defendant, Michelle Lach)

179. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

180. Ms. Lach owed a duty to people like Plaintiffs to reasonably, 

carefully, and prudently market, promote, and facilitate distribution of 

USDTL’s DBS PEth testing and laboratory analyses scheme.

181. Ms. Lach breached the aforementioned duties. 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 44 of 54
Page 45 of 54

182. Each Plaintiff suffered a physical injury (to wit: puncture or 

laceration of their flesh and extraction of their blood), most if not all more 

than once, when using the Defendants’ DBS PEth testing kits.

183. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Plaintiffs’ use of 

the Defendants’ DBS PEth testing kits, and Ms. Lach’s breaches of duty, 

each plaintiff sustained psychological trauma; pain; suffering; mental 

anguish; lacerations; extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or 

diminishment of the ability to enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; 

damaged reputation; lost wages or earnings or earning opportunities in the 

past; inability or diminishment of future earning capacity or earning 

opportunities in the future; legal fees; expert fees; administrative fees; 

licensure fees; expenses related to mental health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or 

substance abuse treatment; and expenses related to seeking administrative 

and/or employment related review, appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

Michelle Lach for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000, 

exclusive of interests and costs; punitive damages; and a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable.

COUNT IX: NEGLIGENCE

(as to Defendant, United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc.)

184. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 45 of 54
Page 46 of 54

185. USDTL owed a duty to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care, 

diligence, and prudence in its research, development, validation,

manufacturing, packaging, marketing, promotion, distribution, sale, and 

commercial use of its DBS PEth testing scheme.

186. USDTL owed a duty to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care, 

diligence, and prudence in its handling, storage, analysis, interpretation, 

reporting, and sharing data and/or results from DBS PEth samples collected 

from donors.

187. USDTL owed a duty to exercise reasonable care, diligence, and 

prudence in its training and supervision of donors and collectors involved 

with its DBS PEth testing scheme. 

188. USDTL owed a duty to ensure that the agents or employees it 

hired to research, develop, validate, manufacture, package, handle, market,

promote, distribute, sell, or otherwise participate in its DBS PEth testing 

scheme, including but not limited to analyzing samples, interpreting data, 

and reporting results, were fit for the work at the time they were hired or 

retained. This included, but was not limited to, Veronica Lewis, Douglas 

Lewis, Joseph Jones, James R. Lesch, Donna Coy, Priti Soni, Michelle Lach, 

and Michele Gable (owner of Choice Lab, Inc.).

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 46 of 54
Page 47 of 54

189. USDTL owed a duty to ensure that the agents or employees it 

retained to research, develop, validate, manufacture, package, handle, 

market, promote, distribute, sell, or otherwise participate in its DBS PEth 

testing scheme, including but not limited to analyzing samples, interpreting 

data, and reporting results, continued to be fit for the work after they were 

hired. This included, but was not limited to, Veronica Lewis, Douglas Lewis, 

Joseph Jones, James R. Lesch, Donna Coy, Priti Soni, Michelle Lach, and 

Michele Gable (owner of Choice Lab, Inc.).

190. USDTL owed a duty to ensure that the agents or employees it 

utilized to research, develop, validate, manufacture, package, handle, 

market, promote, distribute, sell, or otherwise participate in its DBS PEth 

testing scheme, including but not limited to analyzing samples, interpreting 

data, and reporting results, were reasonably and appropriately supervised 

and trained. This included, but was not limited to, Veronica Lewis, Douglas 

Lewis, Joseph Jones, James R. Lesch, Donna Coy, Priti Soni, Michelle Lach, 

and Michele Gable (owner of Choice Lab, Inc.).

191. USDTL breached the aforementioned duties.

192. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of USDTL’s breach 

of its duties, each plaintiff sustained psychological trauma; pain; suffering; 

mental anguish; lacerations; extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 47 of 54
Page 48 of 54

diminishment of the ability to enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; 

damaged reputation; lost wages or earnings or earning opportunities in the 

past; inability or diminishment of future earning capacity or earning 

opportunities in the future; legal fees; expert fees; administrative fees; 

licensure fees; expenses related to mental health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or 

substance abuse treatment; and expenses related to seeking administrative 

and/or employment related review, appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc. for compensatory damages in 

an amount exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs; punitive 

damages; and a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

COUNT X: NEGLIGENCE

(as to Defendant, Douglas Lewis)

193. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

194. Mr. Lewis owed a duty to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care, 

diligence, and prudence in his work for USDTL, specifically as it relates to its 

commercial DBS PEth testing scheme. This duty included, but was not 

limited to, research, development, validation, manufacturing, packaging,

marketing, promotion, distribution, sale, and commercial use of DBS PEth.

195. Mr. Lewis breached the aforementioned duty.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 48 of 54
Page 49 of 54

196. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of his breach of his 

duty, each plaintiff sustained psychological trauma; pain; suffering; mental 

anguish; lacerations; extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or 

diminishment of the ability to enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; 

damaged reputation; lost wages or earnings or earning opportunities in the 

past; inability or diminishment of future earning capacity or earning 

opportunities in the future; legal fees; expert fees; administrative fees; 

licensure fees; expenses related to mental health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or 

substance abuse treatment; and expenses related to seeking administrative 

and/or employment related review, appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

Douglas Lewis for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000, 

exclusive of interests and costs; punitive damages; and a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable.

COUNT XI: NEGLIGENCE

(as to Defendant, Joseph Jones)

197. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

198. Dr. Jones owed a duty to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care, 

diligence, and prudence in his work for USDTL, specifically as it relates to its 

commercial DBS PEth testing scheme. This duty included, but was not 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 49 of 54
Page 50 of 54

limited to, research, development, validation, manufacturing, packaging,

marketing, promotion, distribution, sale, and commercial use of DBS PEth.

199. Dr. Jones breached the aforementioned duty.

200. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of his breach of his 

duty, each plaintiff sustained psychological trauma; pain; suffering; mental 

anguish; lacerations; extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or 

diminishment of the ability to enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; 

damaged reputation; lost wages or earnings or earning opportunities in the 

past; inability or diminishment of future earning capacity or earning 

opportunities in the future; legal fees; expert fees; administrative fees; 

licensure fees; expenses related to mental health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or 

substance abuse treatment; and expenses related to seeking administrative 

and/or employment related review, appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

Joesph Jones for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000, 

exclusive of interests and costs; punitive damages; and a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable.

COUNT XII: NEGLIGENCE

(as to Defendant, Michelle Lach)

201. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138 as if alleged herein.

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 50 of 54
Page 51 of 54

202. Ms. Lach owed a duty to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care, 

diligence, and prudence in her work for USDTL, specifically as it relates to 

marketing or promoting its commercial use of DBS PEth testing, which 

spanned USDTL’s website, social media accounts, online presence, 

YouTube channel, speaking engagements, publication of written research, 

papers, articles, or journals, and all other media-related engagements.

203. Ms. Lach breached the aforementioned duty.

204. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of her breach of 

her duty, each plaintiff sustained psychological trauma; pain; suffering; 

mental anguish; lacerations; extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or 

diminishment of the ability to enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; 

damaged reputation; lost wages or earnings or earning opportunities in the 

past; inability or diminishment of future earning capacity or earning 

opportunities in the future; legal fees; expert fees; administrative fees; 

licensure fees; expenses related to mental health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or 

substance abuse treatment; and expenses related to seeking administrative 

and/or employment related review, appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

Michelle Lach for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000, 

exclusive of interests and costs; punitive damages; and a trial by jury on all 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 51 of 54
Page 52 of 54

issues so triable.

COUNT XIII: VICARIOUS LIABILITY

(as to Defendant, United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc.)

205. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1 through 138, 175 through 177, 

179 through 181, and 183 through 185, as if alleged herein.

206. Mr. Lewis was an agent, officer, or employee of USDTL.

207. Dr. Jones was an agent, officer, or employee of USDTL.

208. Ms. Lach was an agent, officer, or employee of USDTL.

209. Under the doctrines of respondeat superior or actual agency, 

USDTL is vicariously liable for the negligence of its agents, officers, and/or 

employees like Mr. Lewis, Dr. Jones, and Ms. Lach if his/her/their negligence 

occurred within the course and scope of his/her/their agency and/or 

employment. 

210. Mr. Lewis was negligent in the performance of his duties, role, 

responsibilities, and obligations as an agent, officer, or employee of USDTL.

211. Dr. Jones was negligent in the performance of his duties, role, 

responsibilities, and obligations as an agent, officer, or employee of USDTL. 

212. Ms. Lach was negligent in the performance of her duties, role, 

responsibilities, and obligations as an agent, officer, or employee of USDTL. 

213. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of his/her/their

negligence within the course and scope of his/her/their agency and/or 

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 52 of 54
Page 53 of 54

employment, each plaintiff sustained psychological trauma; pain; suffering; 

mental anguish; lacerations; extraction of blood; inconvenience; fear; loss or 

diminishment of the ability to enjoy life; embarrassment; humiliation; 

damaged reputation; lost wages or earnings or earning opportunities in the 

past; inability or diminishment of future earning capacity or earning 

opportunities in the future; legal fees; expert fees; administrative fees; 

licensure fees; expenses related to mental health, psychiatric, alcohol and/or 

substance abuse treatment; and expenses related to seeking administrative 

and/or employment related review, appeals, or reconsideration.

WHEREFORE each of the Plaintiffs demands a judgment against 

United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc. for compensatory damages in 

an amount exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs; punitive 

damages; and a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Each plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated this 12th day of December, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted By:

Fischer Redavid PLLC

4601 Sheridan Street

Suite 320

Hollywood, FL 33021

Phone: (954) 860-8434

Fax: (954) 860-8584

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 53 of 54
Page 54 of 54

Service@YourChampions.com (eService only)

/s/ Jordan Redavid, Esq.

JORDAN REDAVID, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 109227

Jordan@YourChampions.com (Primary)

Latricia@YourChampions.com (Secondary)

Crystal@YourChampions.com (Tertiary) 

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/ Keyla J. Smith, Esq.

KEYLA J. SMITH, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 111784

Keyla@YourChampions.com (Primary)

Diana@YourChampions.com (Secondary)

Case 0:22-cv-62325-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 54 of 54