However, if an individual verbally refuses or resists the test, it should not be administered. The individual being tested does not need to, nor should be asked to, sign either a consent or waiver of liability form. There is a split of authority in the courts with regard to the finding of probable cause in determining whether an individual has operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. Pennsylvania courts have held that the first line of responsibility for determining probable cause for testing rests with law enforcement officials but, where an investigating officer is not available to request a test based on probable cause, hospital personnel may be statutorily mandated to take and test the blood and release the results if there is treatment in an emergency room following a crash and probable cause to suspect driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. The Motor Vehicle Code directs that if a patient refuses chemical testing, it should not be given.
Hospitals have an obligation under the law to collect requested specimens for testing.
In other words, the hospital may not refuse the testing merely on the basis that the patient refused to sign a hospital form. However, in situations where resistance or refusal to cooperate is encountered, the hospital may medically refuse to withdraw the blood, inasmuch as resistance may lead to the possibility of the syringe needle breaking within the arm, nerve damage, laceration or other potential medical complications. Thus, even if the patient has given verbal consent to the test, if the test appears medically contraindicated for any reason, including reasons of patient safety, the hospital may decline to perform the test on that basis. The Commonwealth Court has held that the Motor Vehicle Code's implied consent to chemical testing provision extends to anyone operating a motor vehicle, including a minor. 723 Pa. Cmwlth.