UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UXITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

MICHAEL ANTHONY TAYLOR 

Respondent. 

Docket Number: CG S&R 04-0498 

Case No. 2156149 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued: Jauuarv 10,2005 

Issued bv: Jeffie J. Massev. Administrative Law Judee 

Appearances: 

For Complainant 

ENS Matthew Spolarich 

CWO Jason Boyer 

U.S. Coast Guard 

MSO Morgan City 

800 David Drive 

Morgan City, La 70380 

For Respondent 

Michael Anthony Taylor, pi-o se 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

On September 21, 2004, the United States Coast Guard ("L'SCG" herein) initiated 

an administrative proceeding against credentials issued to Michael Anthony Taylor by the 

USCG. Specifically, it was alleged that, while a holder of Coast Guard issued credentials 

on July 7, 2004, the Respondent submitted a urine sample that tested positive for 

marijuana metabolites, thereby giving rise to an allegation that he was a user of or was 

addicted to dangerous drugs. 

On October 29,2004, Respondent's Answer was received by the Docketing 

Center (after receiving an extension). In his Answer Respondent denied all of the 

allegations and requested to be heard on the proposed order. 

A hearing was duly scheduled and convened in Houma, Louisiana on January 5, 

2005. The USCG called the following witnesses: Trent Sanamo, Dr. Robert Davis, 

Gretchen Moore, Bryan Gisclair, and Dr. Harold Miller. Ten exhibits were admitted for 

evidentiary purposes on behalf of the USCG and two exhibits were admitted for 

evidentiary purposes on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent testified in his own 

behalf. 

At the end of the testimony, the evidentiary record was closed. Both sides waived 

the filing of written proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the filing of 

post-hearing briefs. The undersigned then announced her decision on the record. 

Further, the undersigned informed the parties that this written rendition of the findings of 

fact and conclusions of law announced on the record would be issued as soon as possible. 

This document constitutes said issuance. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On and about July 20,2004, the Respondent was employed by Edison 

Chouest Offshore and reported for duty as a deckhand onboard the OSV Loop 

Loader. 

2. As an employee of Edison Chouest Offshore, the Respondent was a holder of 

credentials issued to him by the USCG. 

3. On and about July 20, 2004, Respondent's employer elected to have the 

Respondent submit to chemical testing based upon a reasonable suspicion that 

the Respondent was under the influence of an intoxicating substance. 

4. The employer's election to have the Respondent submit to chemical testing 

was based on the observation of at least two supervisory employees who both 

suspected that the Respondent was under the influence of an intoxicating 

substance as a result of their observation of the Respondent's behavior. 

5. The Respondent submitted to a breath test (which was negative for alcohol 

content) and then submitted a urine sample pursuant to the provisions of Part 

40 of Title 49, Code of Federal Rebwlations. 

6. The urine specimen submitted by the Respondent was tested in accordance 

with the provisions of Part 40: supra. and tested positive for rnari~ua~~a 

metabolites. 

7. The rcsults of the urine testing were properly reviewed by a Medical Review 

Officer. 
8. The Respondent admitted to being in the presence of multiple persons who 

were smoking marijuana the day before the testing was performed. 

DISCUSSION 

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-59, governs Coast 

Guard suspension and revocation hearings. 46 U.S.C. 7702(a). The APA only authorizes 

sanctions to be imposed if, upon consideration of the record as a whole, the charges are 

supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. 556(d). "The term 

substantial evidence is synonymous with preponderance of the evidence as defined by the 

Supreme Court." Appeal Decision 2477 (TOMBAR11 (1998). The burden of proving a 

claim by a preponderance of the evidence "simply requires the trier of fact 'to believe 

that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in 

favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the budge] of the fact's existence."' 

Concrete Pioe and Products of California, Ine. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for 

Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993)(citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371- 

72 (1 970)(Warlan, J., concurring)(brackets in original)). Under Coast Guard procedural 

regulations, the Coast Guard bears the burden of proving the charges by a preponderance 

of the evidence. 33 CFR 20.701, 20.702(a). Therefore, the Coast Guard must prove with 

reliable and probative evidence tbat Respondent more likely than not committed the 

violations charged. 

Title 46 U.S.C. $7704(c) provides that a license. certificate of registry. or 

merchant mariner's document (MMD) shall be revoked if it is shown that the holder has 

been a user oS or addicted to, a dangerous drug unless he can prove satisfactory cure. 46 
U.S.C. 7704(c). A "dangerous drug" is defined as "a narcotic drug, controlled substarice, 

or a controlled substance analog (as defined in section 102 of the Comprehensive Drug 

Abuse and Conhol Act of 1970). 46 U.S.C. 2101(8a). h "controlled substance" is 

further defined as a "drug or other substance, or immediate precursor. liicluded in 

schedule 1,11, 111, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter." 21 U.S.C. 802. Any material 

containing any quantsty of "Manhuana" 1s llsted under Schedule I(c) of the controlled 

substances schedules. 21 U.S C. 812(c). Therefore, the Coast Guard must proke 

Respondent was a holder of a license, certificate of registry, or merchant marisier's 

document at tile time he tested positive for marijuana metabolites. 

If an individual fails a chemical test for dangerous drugs under this part, the 

individual will be presumed to be a user of dangerous drugs. 46 C.F.R. S; 16.201(b). The 

statutory wording of 46 U.S. Code 5 7704(c) clearly shows that even a one time use of a 

dangerous drug constitutes grounds for revocation unless the mariner shows satisfactory 

proof that he is cured. 46 U.S. Code 5 7704(c); See also APPEAL DECISION 2535 

[SWEENEY). 

The testimony of Trent Sanamo, the Health, Safety and Environmental 

Coordinator for Edison Chouest Offshore ("Edison" herein) in July 2004, established that 

the Respondent was an employee of Edison on July 20,2004, and that he was due to 

board a vessel as part of a crew change. At approximately 8:00 a. m. on the morning of 

July 20, he received a call from the location of the crew change which indicated that the 

Respondent had arrived, and he appeared to be under the influence of "something." 

Upon his arrival at the Respondent's location, Mr. Sana~no noted that the Respondent 

was not "acting normal": his speech was slurred, he was stumbling and he was unable to 
hold a consersation. Mr. Sanamo reiterated that the Respondent appeared to be under the 

influence of some substance, and that he was not fit for duty. He added that he had been 

around persons under the influence of marijuana in the past. The Respondent attempted 

to elicit testimony from the witness that the reason he was "singled out" for a test was 

because he was late for crew change, and he drove instead of taking the crew bus. The 

witness reiterated that the Respondent was chosen for ehemical testing because of the 

way he was acting. 

Bryan Gisclair, Operations Coordinator for Edison in July 2004 testified that he 

was summoned to the location of the crew change by the security guard. Upon observing 

the Respondent, he agreed with the suggestion that the Respondent should undergo 

chemical testing. A breath test for alcohol was negative, so the witness proceeded to 

transport the Respondent to the location where the urine specimen was to be collected. 

Mr. Gisclair testified that while the Respondent did not fall down, his "general actions" 

were not good. He further testified that Respondent's speech was slurred and he would 

fall asleep in the middle of a sentence. In his opinion, the Respondent was not fit for 

duty. He did say that the Respondent just kept saying he was really tired. 

Gretchen Moore testified as to the procedures followed during the urine collection 

process. Her procedures were in compliance with the provisions of Part 40, supra. The 

evidence showed her to be an experienced collector, and the undersigned found no 

irregularities about her testimony. 

Dr. Harold 1-1. Miller, Laboratory Director for Quest Diagnostics, authenticated 

the process by which the Respondent's urine specimen was received at the laboratory and 

tested. Again, based on the testimony of this witness, it was clear that the provisions of 
Part 40 were followed. Dr. Miller also answered the Respondent's questions about how 

long n~arijuana stays in a person's body. detailing the process by which marijuana is 

stored in the body, then eliminated. Dr. Miller also explained hiow it was possible to have 

a positive test for marijuana that was followed by a negative test only a few days later. 

Dr. Miller also discussed various methods by which substances can be added to urine 

samples to inask the detection of marijuana metabolites during the testing process. 

The final witness on behalf of the USCG was the Medical Review Officer (MRO) 

in this case, Dr. Robert Davis. Dr. Davis related his telephone conversation with the 

Respondent and generally discussed the role of the hlRO in the testing process. Again, 

this witness' testiinony reflected complia~ce with the provisions of Part 40. 

After being advised of his right to testify, the Respondent decided to testify on his 

own behalf. He explained that when he arrived at the crew change location, he had been 

up for a very long time, having driven &om Tampa, Florida, and getting lost in the 

process. He explained that he exchanged harsh words with the security gpard at the crew 

change location, and he felt he was being singled out because he drove to the location and 

he was late. He admitted that he had been "around" marijuana. On questioning by the 

undersigned, he elaborated that he had been to a birthday party where approximately 

twenty people had been smoking marijuana in a rootn. He claimed to have only remained 

in the room for ten minutes before walking outside. This occurred the previous day. 

Through his testimony, he offered the results of a urine test performed on July 26, 2004, 

which reflected no positive results for marijuana. (See Respondent's Exhibit 1 & 2.) 

ln these proceedings, the Administrative Law Judge is vested with broad 

discretion to determine witness credibility and resolve inconsistencies in the evidence, 
and the findings of the Administrative Law Judge are not required to be consistent with 

all the evidence in the record as long as there is sufficient evidence to justi@ the finding. 

Appeal Decision 2639 (HAUCK) (2003). As I noted on the record after the close of the 

evidence, I find the testimony of the witnesses for the USCG to be entirely credible. The 

testimony clearly showed that the Respondent was a holder of USCG issued credentials, 

that he submitted to a reasonabte cause urine test on July 20,2004, and that the specimen 

was collected and tested in compliance with the Part 40 provisions. 

The Respondent, through his testimony and his questioning of USCG witnesses 

sought to show that he was unfairly singled out for testing because he was late for crew 

change, and he drove his vehicle instead of riding the crew bus provided by Edison. He 

also attempted to explain the abnormalities in his behavior on July 20 by pointing to his 

lack of sleep. Lastly, he attempted to discredit the results of the testing on the July 20 

specimen by submitting test results ostensibly produced as a result of a specimen 

submitted on July 26. 

The USCG objected to the admission of the July 26 test results, claiming they 

were not relevant. They were admitted because they are relevant. But, they are not 

necessarily probative-which is why those results do not produce any measurable 

conflict of evidence in this case. Besides the possibility that the urine specimen 

submitted by the Respondent on July 26 had been adulterated with an agent to mask 

marijuana metabolites (there was no testimony that the testing process ruled this out), the 

existence of a negative test result on July 26 does not impugn the validity of the July 20 

test, based on the record before me. Considering the Respondent's testimony and the 

testimony of Dr. Miller, it is entirely possible that the marijuana present in the 
Respondent's system on July 20 had dissipated to the point that it was below the 

minimum cut-off point (established in Part 40) by July 26. On the record before me, this 

scenario is substantially likely to have occurred. 

With the Respondent's swonl admission that he had been around at least twenty 

people who were smoking marijuana on the day before he was tested by Edison, one 

would expect a positive test result on July 20. Accordingly, I find no significant conflicts 

of evidence in this case. Lastly, I note the fact that if the Respondent was overly tired 011 

July 20 (assuming arguendo that his testimony on this point is huthfi~i), this in no way 

repudiates the reasonableness of the testimony concerning his abnormal behavior which 

led to the reasonable cause testing. The behavior and actions of the Respondent, as 

related through the testimony of Mr. Sanamo and Mr. Ciselair; clearly gave rise to a 

reasonable conclusion that the Respondent was under the intluenee of some intoxicating 

substance. 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. On and about July 20,2004, Respondent was employed with Edison Chouest 

O'ifshore and he was the holder of credentials issued by the USCG.' 

2. On and about July 20,2004, the beha5lor of the Respondent gave rise to a 

reasonable conclusion that he was under the influence of an intoxicating 

substance, thus giving his ernployer the right to administer chemical testing to 

him. 

i The Complaint lists the date in question as July 7, 2004, 1 find this to be an insibmificant 

variance. 
3. Respondent submitted a urine specimen which subsequently tested positive 

for marijuana metabolites, all pursuant to the provisions of Part 40 of Title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

4. The USCG proved by a preponderance of the evidence that sanctions are 

warranted against Respondent's Coast Guard issued credential(s) under 46 

U.S.C. $7704, because the evidence proved Respondent to be a user of 

dangerous drugs. 

5. Pursuant to the provisions of 46 USC $7704(c), the evidentiary record 

supports a revocation of all credentials issued to the Respondent by the 

USCG. 

SANCTION 

Under the provisions of 46 USC $7704, an Order of Revocation of the credentials 

issued to the Respondent by the USCG must be entered. 
ORDER 

1T IS HEREBY ORDERED that all credentials issued to the Respondent by the 

United States Coast Guard, including but not necessarily limited to Merchant Mariner's 

Document number 41 7013008 are hereby REVOKED. You must immediately 

surrender all documents in your possession to the Coast Guard. If you knowingly 

continue to use your documents, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that service of this Decislon on the partles andlor 

parties' representativc(s) serves as notice of appeal rights set forth in 33 CFR 20.1001 

20.1004. (Attachme~lt A). 

Done and dated Jaiiuary 10, 2005 

Kew Orleans, Louisiana