Opinion ID: 78356
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Swaters's Affirmative Defense

Text: Once the FAA has made out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent to advance an affirmative defense. See, e.g., Adm'r v. Gibbs, NTSB Order No. EA-5291, 2007 WL 1726666, at  (June 5, 2007); see also Miranda v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 866 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir.1989) (Once the FAA has established a prima facie case the burden shifts to [the pilot] to prove the validity of any affirmative defense he may have.) (quotation marks removed). The defense must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Adm'r v. Tsegaye, NTSB Order No. EA-4205, 1994 WL 324279, at n. 7 (June 23, 1994) (We agree with the Administrator that respondent must do more than present a prima facie case for an affirmative defense. Respondent must prove his affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.). Swaters first purports to identify irregularities in the collection and subsequent handling of his sample. Specifically, he notes that when Stachurski was interviewed, he could not recall any specific details concerning the collection of Swaters's sample. As a result, Swaters complains, [t]he only evidence which caused the revocation of his certificates was the chain of custody, which is not ... based on actual knowledge, but `usual and customary' practice. Gray Br. at 9. But there is nothing remarkable about Stachurski's inability to recall the particulars associated with each individual donor weeks or months after the fact. Indeed, if anything, the fact that Stachurski had no special recollection regarding the taking of Swaters's sample suggests that the sample was collected without incident. In any event, Swaters must do more than point to Stachurski's inability to recall specifically that nothing untoward occurred in the collection of his sample. Rather, it is incumbent upon Swaters to affirmatively cite evidence suggesting that something went awry. This he has failed to do. To be sure, Swaters claims that he was unable to witness the sealing of the bottles containing his sample and the sealing of the plastic bag in which the bottles were ultimately sent to Quest. Once again, however, the ALJ specifically found that Swaters's testimony lacked credibility on this point, Order at , and the NTSB found no reason to question the ALJ's finding. As the Board explained: In this regard, 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 and credited the testimony of the Administrator's witnesses. Board precedent is clear that credibility determinations are generally within the exclusive province of the law judge and will not be disturbed in the absence of arbitrariness, capriciousness, or some other compelling reason. Respondent demonstrates no compelling reason, nor do we discern one, to overturn the law judge's negative assessment of respondent's testimony. Order at . Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's adverse assessment of Swaters's credibility (and the Board's acceptance of that assessment). Among other things, the ALJ's determination is supported by the fact that, although Swaters claims not to have witnessed the sealing of the specimen bottles, he initialed the sealed bottles and signed the certification on the chain of custody form specifically stating that he had witnessed the sealing. Because it is supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ's determination regarding Swaters's lack of credibility is conclusive. We also reiterate that the ALJ's credibility determination does not simply fail to support Swaters's case; it constitutes positive evidence against Swaters and in support of the FAA's case. Cf. Woodard, 459 F.3d at 1087; Brown, 53 F.3d at 314. Furthermore, even assuming that the bag was not sealed in Swaters's presence, the Board still could reasonably have concluded that the sample belonged to Swaters. As we have noted, under the protocol followed by Stachurksi, by the time that samples are enclosed and sealed in the plastic bag, the bottles containing the samples have themselves already been signed and sealed. Hence, so long as the seal on the bottles showed no signs of tampering  and Dr. Brunelli testified unequivocally that they did not  the integrity of the sample could not have been compromised. FAA Guidelines address precisely this issue and make clear that failure to seal the bag in the donor's presence does not constitute a fatal error. Specifically, 49 C.F.R. § 40.199 provides: (a) As the MRO, when the laboratory discovers a fatal flaw during its processing of incoming specimens, the laboratory will report to you that the specimen has been Rejected for Testing (with the reason stated). You must always cancel such a test. (b) The following are fatal flaws: (1) There is no printed collector's name and no collector's signature; (2) The specimen ID numbers on the specimen bottle and the CCF do not match; (3) The specimen bottle seal is broken or shows evidence of tampering (and a split specimen cannot be redesignated); and (4) Because of leakage or other causes, there is an insufficient amount of urine in the primary specimen bottle for analysis and the specimens cannot be redesignated. 49 C.F.R. § 40.199 (citations omitted). The only actual error to which Swaters points is the notation on a form generated by Quest in processing Swaters's sample that indicated that the specimen had been collected at 8:47 a.m. instead of 8:47 p.m. Yet Swaters fails to offer any suggestion as to how this might have affected the results of his urine test. Pointing to this single error  and a very minor one at that  simply affords no ground for casting doubt on the entire sample-collecting process. In short, 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 [Swaters] provided after his duty day on February 26, 2007. Order at . That determination was not arbitrary and capricious or in any other way contrary to law. In addition, Swaters argues that the Board's determination was arbitrary and capricious because expert testimony presented at the hearing establishes that it is impossible for the sample to have been his. Swaters first claims that, based on the pharmacological evidence in the record, he could not have ingested heroin prior to 4:55 a.m. on February 26. Given 6-AM's short half-life, Swaters argues that the substance could not possibly have remained in his urine until his sample was taken at 8:47 p.m. Nothing in the record, however, warrants so sweeping a conclusion. Neither Dr. White nor Dr. Spiehler was ever asked whether the level of 6-AM found in the urine sample would have been impossible if Swaters had ingested the heroin before 4:55 a.m.; nor did either expert volunteer any specific statement to that effect. To be sure, the testimony of both experts suggests that the 6-AM level found in the urine sample would have been unlikely if the heroin had been taken on the day before the test (or at any rate, prior to 4:55 a.m. on February 26). Dr. White surmised that, based on the 6-AM levels found in the sample, the substance would most likely have been taken within ten hours of taking the test. Similarly, Dr. Spiehler testified that in the relevant medical literature, twelve hours after ingestion was the longest time 6-AM was found to have remained in urine. To say that the result obtained here is unlikely, however, is not the same thing as saying that it would have been impossible. Indeed, our review of the record indicates that Dr. White and Dr. Spiehler were decidedly tentative in their testimony regarding the time period over which 6-AM could be detected in urine. Thus, for example, Dr. White stated that 6-AM metabolites  ought to be around for a couple of hours, and  may be out in eight to ten hours. R. at 353 (emphasis added). Asked again how long it might take for 6-AM to no longer show up in urine, he responded:  I'd say within ten hours, probably a little less, simply because it does have a very short half-life. R. at 354 (emphasis added). These remarks are estimates, not categorical pronouncements. In addition, Dr. White opined that how long 6-AM may remain in a person's urine can be affected by factors such as the person's metabolism and his degree of hydration. Nothing in the record indicates that these factors could not account for the presence of 6-AM metabolites in Swaters's urine beyond the substance's typical half-life. Dr. Spiehler's testimony was similarly tentative regarding how long after ingestion 6-AM might be detected in a person's urine. She stated, for example, I think it would have to have been more than two hours before the urine was donated, but less than 12 hours. R. at 451 (emphasis added). She also opined that [i]f the heroin had been ingested more than 12 hours prior to the urine collection... it's unlikely that [6-AM] would have been detected at all in the urine at a 10 [ng/ml] level. R. at 456-57 (emphasis added). Again, like Dr. White's testimony, these statements express generalities and probabilities, not definitive limits or medical certainties. On this record, the NTSB could reasonably reject Swaters's claim that it was impossible for him to have ingested the drugs during the evening of February 25, or at some time prior to 4:55 a.m. Moreover, even if Swaters were correct in maintaining that he could not possibly have ingested the heroin prior to 4:55 a.m., it still would not have been arbitrary and capricious for the Board to conclude that the sample belonged to Swaters. On the contrary, the Board could reasonably have reached an even more disquieting conclusion on this record: namely, that Swaters took the drug within ten to twelve hours of submitting his sample. Such a conclusion would constitute even more formidable evidence that Swaters was indeed under the influence of the prohibited substances during any or all of the February 26, 2007 flights to Orlando, to Kingston, Jamaica, and Fort Lauderdale. Swaters claims that he could not have taken any drugs after 4:55 a.m. because after that time he was constantly in the presence of crew members. As a result, he argues, he had no opportunity to take any drugs; he also points to the fact that none of the people who interacted with him during this period observed any sign that he was under the influence of the drugs. It is simply untrue, however, that Swaters was never alone after 4:55 a.m. on February 26. At a minimum, Swaters was alone when using the restroom during the time period in question. Swaters acknowledged that he used the restroom between the legs of the various flights on that day, and he admitted that when he used the airplane's restroom, he was unaccompanied. R. at 440-41. The exact number and duration of his bathroom breaks is unclear from the record. Swaters was also unclear as to whether he might have used restrooms other than the one on the airplane. At all events, Swaters's testimony indicates that there was a period of roughly thirty to forty minutes between his flights that day. [8] There is substantial evidence in the record suggesting that Swaters had the opportunity to take the drugs during this period. To be sure, the ALJ said that it appear[ed] indeed unlikely that the Respondent could have ingested prohibited drugs in the quantities found in his urine after he reported for work at 4:55 a.m. on February 26, 2007. Order at . Notably, however, we have neither a finding of fact nor a square holding from either the ALJ or the Board about when Swaters had taken the drugs. What they did find categorically was that the sample containing the offending metabolites belonged to him. As for the lack of symptoms, both Dr. White and Dr. Spiehler [9] testified that the observable effects resulting from this combination of substances could be affected by a variety of factors. For example, when asked whether an observer would notice anything unusual in the behavior of a person who had taken the drugs found in Swaters's sample, Dr. White replied that it would depend[] on who's doing the observing, whether you've got a trained observer or not. R. at 355. Additionally, Dr. White opined that the symptoms exhibited would depend[] on how much they took. R. at 355. Dr. Spiehler, too, stated that the size of the dose, as well as the user's tolerance to the drug, could affect the symptoms exhibited by a user, and conceded that she couldn't really extrapolate behavior or symptoms from urine levels. R. at 451. Hence, the fact that no one observed anything unusual in Swaters's behavior does not compel the conclusion that he could not have taken the drugs after 4:55 a.m. In short, there was nothing arbitrary and capricious about the Board's conclusion that Swaters's uncredited testimony and the testimony of his witnesses as to their observations regarding the absence of any visible signs of drug intoxication ... [were] insufficient to carry his burden to rebut the prima facie case. Order at . We, therefore, hold that it was not arbitrary and capricious for the Board to conclude that the FAA had made a prima facie showing that Swaters's urine sample had tested positive for prohibited substances. Likewise, it was not arbitrary and capricious for the Board to conclude that Swaters failed to rebut the FAA's prima facie case. The most that can be said in petitioner's favor is that he succeeded in raising the possibility that the sample may not have been his. As we have noted, however, the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence. McHenry, 668 F.2d at 1190 (quotation marks omitted). Even if the Board could have accepted Swaters's position, it did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in declining to do so. Because we cannot say that the Board's decision was an arbitrary or capricious one, we affirm its decision upholding the revocation of Swaters's certificates and we deny his petition for review. AFFIRMED, PETITION DENIED.