Opinion ID: 4520785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Subsequent Testing Reveals a False Positive

Text: At 8:00 p.m., the same day that Holly gave birth and approximately two hours after the Schulkers signed the Prevention Plan, Holly’s second urine test results came back as “negative” for any illegal substances. Holly’s night nurse called Kammer and left a voicemail. Between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. the next day, Dr. James Otrembiak visited Holly’s hospital room to check on A.M.S. He told Holly that he had received a phone call from a social worker the day before stating that Holly had tested positive for drugs, and that he had informed the social worker that he believed the test must have been a false positive. He also told Holly that eating poppy seed chips could cause a false positive. He later charted: AWAITING DISPOSITION FROM SOCIAL SERVICE. NO NOTE IN CHART . . . Mom’s repeat drug screen negative. Baby’s cord blood drug screen still pending. Mom states she took some cough med prior to delivery. And also had a bag of . . . chips with Poppy seeds while in labor. She showed me the bag! []poppy seeds, delsum, are among the Products that can cause a false positive for opiates on drug screen. Planning on discharge tomorrow. Need final disposition for discharge from social service. No. 19-5208 Schulkers, et al. v. Kammer, et al. Page 7 R. 21-2, Hospital Record, Pg. ID 303. At 1:32 p.m. that same day (the day after Holly gave birth to A.M.S.), St. Elizabeth received A.M.S.’s umbilical cord test results, which were also “negative” for any illegal substances. Within twenty minutes, St. Elizabeth e-mailed the negative test results from both Holly’s second urine test and A.M.S.’s umbilical cord test to the CHFS. At 3:45 p.m., Kammer confirmed that she had received both of the negative test results. Thus, Plaintiffs allege that as of 3:45 p.m. on Saturday, February 11, 2017—the day after Holly gave birth to A.M.S.—the CHFS, and specifically Kammer, had actual knowledge that: a. The medical professionals for Holly and Baby AMS professed Baby AMS was completely healthy and believed that the pre-delivery presumptive positive test result was a false positive, evidenced by the fact Holly was permitted to breast feed immediately after birth and continued through the discharge of Baby AMS. b. The result of Holly’s second (and more specific) ‘confirming’ urine test was negative for drugs; c. The result of the umbilical cord test (by far the most accurate and determinative test given) was also negative for drugs. d. There was no Court Order nor any petition filed with any Court in order to justify further sanctioning or restricting the Plaintiffs. R. 34, Am. Compl., Pg. ID 517. Despite knowledge that both tests were negative for drugs, the CHFS approved the discharge of A.M.S. only “under supervision of the father” and “pursuant to the Prevention Plan” requiring supervision. Id. at Pg. ID 528. A St. Elizabeth employee received a copy of the Child Protective Services discharge plan, and charted that: “Per CPS plan, [A.M.S.] may discharge to [Holly] under supervision of an approved supervisor. At this time both Mary Schulkers and David Schulkers (spouse) are approved supervisors.” R. 21-1, Hospital Record, Pg. ID 335–36. At approximately 11:00 a.m. on February 12, 2017, the Schulkers were permitted to take A.M.S. home under the terms of the Prevention Plan. On Monday, February 13, 2017, David stayed home from work in order to supervise Holly around the children. At 9:00 that morning, Holly called Kammer to again request to be No. 19-5208 Schulkers, et al. v. Kammer, et al. Page 8 released from the Plan. Kammer told Holly that she had to talk to Alison Campbell. Campbell refused to release the Schulkers from the Prevention Plan. At that point, David and Holly decided to hire an attorney. Holly contacted an attorney who advised her to take a hair follicle drug test.