Opinion ID: 78356
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings Before the Full Board

Text: Swaters next appealed the ALJ's decision to the full National Transportation Safety Board, advancing essentially the same arguments as those he presented before the ALJ. On August 4, 2008, the NTSB entered a final order stating that it agree[d] with the law judge's analysis and discern[ed] no basis to overturn his decision. Order at . [6] First, the Board agreed with the ALJ's determination that the FAA had made a prima facie showing that Swaters's urine had tested positive for prohibited drugs. Indeed, the Board found more than enough evidence to establish the Administrator's prima facie case. Id. at . Like the ALJ, the Board concluded that Swaters had demonstrate[d] no legitimate issue with the chain of custody of his urine specimen, or any other grounds for concluding that the Quest Diagnostics and DSI Laboratory findings were not based on tests of the urine specimen respondent provided after his duty day on February 26, 2007. Id. at . The Board emphasized that the law judge made a clear, adverse credibility finding against respondent's claim as to any errors in the collection procedure or chain of custody of the specimen sample. Id. at . The Board further explained that credibility determinations are generally within the exclusive province of the law judge, and that it saw no reason to overturn the ALJ's assessment. Id. The Board also rejected Swaters's objection to the ALJ's finding that Swaters could have ingested the drugs on the evening before the drug test. Citing portions of Dr. White's and Dr. Spiehler's testimony, the Board found that there was a basis in the record for the law judge's conclusions regarding metabolism. Id. This was so, the Board concluded, even if Swaters's point that there is no link between tolerance and metabolism may [have been] well taken. Id. In light of these determinations, the Board was unpersuaded by Swaters's affirmative defense. Specifically, the Board explained that [r]espondent's uncredited testimony and the testimony of his witnesses as to their observations regarding the absence of any visible signs of drug intoxication, along with respondent's arguments regarding that evidence, are insufficient to carry his burden to rebut the [FAA's] prima facie case. Id. at  (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, the Board affirmed the FAA's revocation order and denied Swaters's appeal. Swaters filed the instant petition for review in this Court.