J-A21018-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

JESSICA MACK, on her own behalf 

and on behalf of other similarly 

situated persons 

Appellant

v.

AVERTEST, LLC d/b/a/ AVERHEALTH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 372 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered January 13, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at 

No(s): 210500356

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 22, 2024

Appellant Jessica Mack appeals from the January 13, 2023 order that

granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee Avertest, LLC d/b/a 

Averhealth (“Averhealth”). After careful review, we affirm the grant of 

summary judgment, but rely on an analysis different from that of the trial 

court.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. Averhealth,

pursuant to a contract with Lehigh County, conducts substance abuse testing 

for the county and the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (“Court”). The 

contract requires Averhealth to perform an immunoassay screening test on all 
J-A21018-23

- 2 -

samples (“Screening Test”).1 The Contract additionally provides that when 

the Court requests further testing on a sample, Averhealth is to conduct a

liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry test (“Confirmation Test”)

to confirm the results of the Screening Test.

2

 The Confirmation Test is more 

accurate, but more expensive than the Screening Test.

3

 

On July 14, 2017, the Court sentenced Ms. Mack to probation for a first 

offense of Driving Under the Influence. The conditions of probation included 

that she abstain from drinking alcohol and submit to drug and alcohol testing

by Averhealth. Trial Ct. Op., 1/13/23, at 3.

On November 17, 2017, Ms. Mack submitted a specimen for testing, and 

the Screening Test revealed a positive test result for alcohol consumption.

4

 

____________________________________________

1 Mot. for Summ. J., 5/19/22, Ex. G, County of Lehigh Contract of Service

(“Contract”), App. A, Attach. A, at ¶ 6(b). The Screening Test screens for 

various substances including Ethyl glucuronide, which “is a metabolite of 

ethanol” used as a “marker for consumption of alcoholic beverages.” Mot. for 

Summ. J., Ex. F., Aff. of Michele Glinn, Ph.D., at ¶ 8-9. “[I]nnocent positive” 

results can occur when using the Screening Test because ethanol is also 

present in products such as mouthwash and hand sanitizers. Id. at ¶ 11.

2 Id. at ¶ 7; Contract at ¶ 6(e).

3 Averhealth stated that the Contract set the rate at $13.00 for the Screening 

Test and $15.95 for the Confirmation Test. Mot. For Summ. J. at ¶ 28; 

Contract, App. B.

4 The trial court and the parties inconsistently identify the date on which Ms. 

Mack provided the relevant specimen. The testing report, however, indicates 

that Ms. Mack provided the specimen on November 17, 2017, and the result 

“reported” on November 20, 2017. Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. B at 50. The 

specific date is not relevant to the issues before this Court. 
J-A21018-23

- 3 -

On November 22, 2017, Ms. Mack’s probation officer arrested and 

incarcerated Ms. Mack. 

On the same day as her arrest, Averhealth received an order from the 

Court to perform a Confirmation Test on Ms. Mack’s specimen, and it 

“reported” a negative result for alcohol consumption on November 24, 2017.

5

Ms. Mack, however, remained incarcerated for 21 days. As a result of 

the extended period of incarceration, Ms. Mack alleged that she lost her 

employment. 

The record contains scant evidence relating to Ms. Mack’s arrest and 

incarceration.6 This lack of evidence, however, does not impact our analysis 

which is focused on Ms. Mack’s threshold burden to establish that Averhealth 

engaged in an act or failed to engage in act for which it owed Ms. Mack a duty. 

For that purpose, it is highly relevant that the record is devoid of any 

information about the manner in which Averhealth communicated the results 

of the Screening Test to the Court, the probation officer, or Ms. Mack; the 

____________________________________________

5 Mot. For Summ. J., Ex. E at 50.

6 Specifically, the record indicates that the probation officer submitted a

petition for a probation violation warrant on November 27, 2017, which states

that Ms. Mack “failed to remain alcohol free.” Reply in Support of 

[Averhealth’s] Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. I. We emphasize that this was three 

days after Averhealth reported a negative Confirmation Test result. For 

reasons unclear from the record, the Court still signed the warrant on 

December 1, 2017, denied bail, and ordered that a preliminary hearing be 

held within 14 days. Id. The parties have not directed this Court to any 

documentation relating to whether the Court held a preliminary hearing. It 

appears that Ms. Mack was released from incarceration on December 12, 

2017, prior to the expiration of the 14 days.
J-A21018-23

- 4 -

substance of those communications; and, most importantly, whether 

Averhealth disclosed the limitations of the Screening Test to the Court, the 

probation officer, or Ms. Mack.

On June 22, 2021, Ms. Mack, filed a class action complaint against 

Averhealth, claiming that Averhealth negligently breached its duty to her.

7

The trial court has not yet certified the class; thus, we review this action in 

terms of Ms. Mack’s claim against Averhealth. 

On May 19, 2022, Averhealth filed its Motion for Summary Judgment.

It denied owing any duty to Ms. Mack beyond the duty to reasonably collect 

and handle drug testing samples, as established in Sharpe v. St. Luke’s 

Hosp., 821 A.2d 1215 (Pa. 2003). Averhealth also emphasized that it 

recommended Confirmation Testing “[w]here an initial screen indicates 

substance use and the patient denies use.” Mot. for Summ. J. at ¶ 37. 

Indeed, the testing report for Ms. Mack’s specimen expressly stated that,

____________________________________________

7 Ms. Mack and her husband initially filed a complaint in federal court in 

October 2019. Mack v. Avertest, LLC, Civil Action No. 19-5106, 2020 WL 

2039714, (E.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2020). The amended complaint asserted federal 

civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ms. Mack’s

probation officer, as well as state law claims against Averhealth. The federal 

court dismissed the claims against the probation officer based on qualified

immunity and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law 

claims. Id. at 11.

In May 2021, Ms. Mack and her husband filed a Writ of Summons against 

Averhealth in addition to the Lehigh County Court Adult Probation and Parole 

Department, Ms. Mack’s probation officer, and Lehigh County. In July 2021, 

Ms. Mack stipulated to the dismissal of the Lehigh County defendants, leaving 

only Averhealth as a defendant in the instant class action complaint. 
J-A21018-23

- 5 -

Confirmation Testing “should be completed on any positive results prior to 

taking judicial, employment or similar action.” Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 

B. at 50 (emphasis added). 

In response, Ms. Mack argued that Averhealth owed her a duty and 

breached that duty. Ms. Mack’s articulation of the duty has evolved over the 

course of this litigation. Currently, she seeks recognition of the following duty:

[A] duty to disclose the accuracy and limitations of a substance 

use screening test to an examinee submitting to a substance use 

test [and] to the Pennsylvania Courts enforcing probation 

depending on the outcome of the substance use test, when a more 

accurate (though less profitable) substance use test is available 

and the testing facility knows or should know that the more 

accurate test is not always administered to confirm substance use 

before an incarceration decision is made based on the outcome of 

the screening test.

Appellant’s Br. at 6. In support of her duty, Ms. Mack relies upon Sharpe,

which imposed a duty on testing facilities to “exercise a reasonable degree of 

care to avoid erroneous test results occurring because of negligence.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 14 (quoting Sharpe, 821 A.2d at 1221). Ms. Mack concludes 

that Averhealth owes this duty to all test-takers in Lehigh County and 

breached this duty “[b]y withholding information regarding the accuracy and 

limitations” of the Screening Test from test-takers and the Court. Id. at 15. 

On January 13, 2023, the trial court granted summary judgment to 

Averhealth, dismissing the Complaint. The trial court held that the duty 

established in Sharpe did not extend beyond the duty of “non-negligent 

collection and handling of urine specimens.” Trial Ct. Op. at 6. It refused to 

extend that duty to include providing information to test-takers regarding the 
J-A21018-23

- 6 -

limitations on the accuracy of the Screening Test. Id. at 7-10. The trial court 

also concluded that Ms. Mack did not demonstrate causation because she 

failed to show that she “would have taken the [C]onfirmation [T]est if she was 

informed of it[.]” Id. at 11-12. 

On February 8, 2023, Ms. Mack filed her Notice of Appeal. On February 

21, 2023, the trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion incorporating its 

January 13, 2023 Opinion without requesting a Rule 1925(b) statement. Ms. 

Mack presents the following issues on appeal:

1. Where a complainant alleges that a testing facility failed to 

disclose to examinees and the Pennsylvania Courts the accuracy 

and limitations of a substance use screening test, should the [t]rial 

[c]ourt apply the duty recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme 

Court in Sharpe v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 821 A.2d 1215, 1221 (Pa. 

2003), that there is “a substantial public interest in ensuring that 

the medical facilities involved in [substance use] testing exercise 

a reasonable degree of care to avoid erroneous test results 

occurring because of negligence”?

2. Should the [t]rial [c]ourt find the existence of a duty to disclose 

the accuracy and limitations of a substance use screening test to 

avoid erroneous test results pursuant to the five factors 

enumerated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Althaus v. 

Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000)?

3. Should the [t]rial [c]ourt find the existence of a duty where a 

contract with a Pennsylvania county does not limit the testing 

facility’s ability to disclose the accuracy and limitations of a 

screening test to examinees?

Appellant’s Br. at 5. 

We view these questions as Ms. Mack raising a single issue of whether

Averhealth owed a duty to test-takers, such as Ms. Mack, to disclose the 

accuracy and limitation of the Screening Test to test-takers and the Court. 
J-A21018-23

- 7 -

While Ms. Mack sets forth a colorable claim for extending the duty in Sharpe, 

we do not reach this issue and do not necessarily accept the trial court’s 

analysis. Rather, as discussed below, we conclude that Ms. Mack, in response 

to Averhealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment, failed to produce any evidence 

that Averhealth did not disclose the limitations of the Screening Test to the 

Court, her probation officer, or Ms. Mack prior to Ms. Mack’s arrest, and thus,

Ms. Mack failed to provide any evidence from which a court could conclude 

that Averhealth breached the duty that Ms. Mack alleges existed. 

A.

“An appellate court may reverse a grant of summary judgment if there 

has been an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Nicolaou v. Martin, 195 

A.3d 880, 892 (Pa. 2018). “[S]ummary judgment is only appropriate in cases 

where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. at 891. The determination of

whether genuine issues of material fact remain is a question of law. Id. at 

892. Thus, “our standard of review is de novo[,] and our scope of review is 

plenary.” Id. 

A party may bring a motion for summary judgment following the 

completion of discovery if the “party who will bear the burden of proof at trial 

has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action[.]” 

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2(2). A party responding to a summary judgment motion 

“may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings” but must, 

inter alia, identify “evidence in the record establishing the facts essential to 
J-A21018-23

- 8 -

the cause of action[,]” “supplement the record[,] or set forth the reasons why 

the party cannot present evidence essential to justify opposition to the 

motion[.]” Id. at 1035.3(a), (b). In adjudicating motions for summary 

judgment, courts “must take all facts of record and reasonable inferences 

therefrom in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve 

all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the 

moving party.” Nicolaou, 195 A.3d at 891.

As Ms. Mack’s claims sounds in negligence, she must establish the 

following elements: “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty or obligation 

recognized by law; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) a causal 

connection existed between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; 

and (4) actual damages occurred.” Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty., 

218 A.3d 877, 889 (Pa. 2019) (citation omitted).

B.

After careful review of the record, we find that the trial court properly 

granted Averhealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment. We base this conclusion 

on the fact that Ms. Mack failed to meet her threshold burden to establish that 

Averhealth did not disclose information to the Court, her probation officer, or

Ms. Mack about the limitations of the Screening Test. Without information 

about the communication between Averhealth and the probation officer, or 

anyone in a decision-making position at the Court, or between Averhealth and 

Ms. Mack, Ms. Mack has not provided evidence of an act or omission that could
J-A21018-23

- 9 -

lead to a breach of Averhealth’s alleged duty to Ms. Mack. Baldly asserting 

that Averhealth failed to provide a proper disclosure is not evidence.

Instead of providing evidence of the actual communication regarding 

the testing from Averhealth to someone in the court system or to herself, Ms. 

Mack merely alleged that Averhealth did not disclose its “two-step testing 

system” or the availability of the Confirmation Test. Br. in Opp’n To 

[Averhealth’s] Mot. For Summ. J., 6/24/22, at 5-6 (¶¶ 5-7). Ms. Mack places 

legal significance on her assertion that “[w]hile she was in handcuffs being led 

by her probation officer, [Ms. Mack] requested that a second test be done on 

her sample because she had not ingested alcohol or other illegal or proscribed 

substances.” Id, 6/24/22, at 6 (¶ 11). It is not reasonable to infer from Ms. 

Mack’s statement that she asked for additional testing that Averhealth did not 

inform her or the probation officer of the limitations of the Screening Test or 

the availability of the Confirmation Test, especially with the explicit limitations 

set forth in Averhealth’s test results. This is evidence Ms. Mack could have 

obtained from deposing the relevant individuals.

Additionally, the documents that Ms. Mack submitted in response to 

Averhealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment do not meet this threshold

burden. Ms. Mack cited to an email exchange between Lehigh County and

Averhealth in which she claimed that Averhealth “exaggerated the reliability” 

of the Screening Test by stating that the Confirmation Test was “rarely 

needed.” Id. at 6-7 (¶¶ 15-16). We note initially that while Ms. Mack quoted 

most of the following paragraph from Averhealth, she omitted the final 
J-A21018-23

- 10 -

sentence, which we emphasize recommends Confirmation Testing “prior to 

any punitive action”: 

There are times where a specimen [may] screen positive and the 

confirmation results will be negative. This is a small percentage 

and is due to either cross reactivity during the initial test or 

because the specimen was below [the] cutoff level during the 

confirmation test, so it is reported as negative. Confirmation tests 

are rarely needed when clients are using the medication guide and 

avoiding medications that may cross react with the immunoassay 

testing. However, when a client adamantly denies substance use, 

the client should request a confirmation prior to any punitive 

action taken to ensure the specimen is positive for a specific 

analyte and to rule out any cross reactive.

Id. at 7 (¶ 16); Reply in Support of [Averhealth’s] Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. J.

Additionally, this email does not establish that Averhealth failed to provide a 

proper disclosure when it reported the results of the Screening Test to the

Court, the probation officer, or Ms. Mack.

Ms. Mack also attached testimony of Averhealth’s former employee, Dr. 

Sarah Riley, from a Michigan Family Court proceeding, in which Dr. Riley 

alleged that Averhealth’s testing procedures resulted in a high number of false 

positives. Ms. Mack additionally submitted documentation indicating that the 

Michigan Children’s Services Agency subsequently discontinued use of 

Averhealth’s testing for a ninety-day period. Ms. Mack, however, presented 

no evidence regarding the testing of her specimen. This other evidence is 

irrelevant to establish the threshold issue to identify the manner in which 

Averhealth acted or failed to act when it reported the results of its Screening 

Test to the Court, the probation officer, or Ms. Mack. 
J-A21018-23

- 11 -

In essence, Ms. Mack has lodged bald allegations of Averhealth’s 

malfeasance but has not provided record evidence that Averhealth failed to

disclose the limitations of the Screening Test. Accordingly, while on a different 

basis than the trial court, we agree that Ms. Mack failed to meet her threshold

burden in response to Averhealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See Lynn 

v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 70 A.3d 814, 823 (Pa. Super. 2013) (reiterating that 

the Superior Court “may affirm a trial court’s ruling on any basis supported by 

the record on appeal”). Accordingly, we affirm the order granting summary 

judgment.

Order affirmed.

Date: 3/22/2024