FOIA Request - MROs

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. I hereby request the following records:

All documents related to MRO policy or policies, procedures, training manual(s), and AAMRO certification within your agency's possession from 2019 to 2023, on the day this request is processed.

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

I would also appreciate an approximate time frame for this request to be processed. Depending of the time frame for the request to be fulfilled and any fees that may be incurred, I may revise the criteria.

If you deny any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption you think justifies your refusal to release the information and notify me of appeal procedures available under the law.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days.

Sincerely,

Bailey Pillon

Please see my request below this line
----------------------------------------------------
To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. I hereby request the following records:

All documents related to MRO policy or policies, procedures, training manual(s), and AAMRO certification within your agency's possession from 2019 to 2023, on the day this request is processed.

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

I would also appreciate an approximate time frame for this request to be processed. Depending of the time frame for the request to be fulfilled and any fees that may be incurred, I may revise the criteria.

If you deny any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption you think justifies your refusal to release the information and notify me of appeal procedures available under the law.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days.

Sincerely,

Bailey Pillon

To Whom It May Concern:

I ask that this particular request be considered for expedited processing on the grounds of primarily disseminating information and the public interest here is broad, given the prevalence of drug testing among a vast majority of Americans for pre-employment or other drug testing procedures and the role of MROs to be elucidated their policies, procedures, training, and AAMRO certification as well as a potential nexus to constitutional violations. The fourth amendment link is explicitly stated by the AAMRO.

This makes the request exceptionally broad and compelling in favor of public interest so as to scrutinize the equity in their treatment while also promoting understanding in the MROs role as it potentially relates to the fourth amendment.

Sincerely,

Bailey Pillon

To Whom It May Concern:

Please acknowledge receipt of this FOIA request.

Thank you,

Bailey Pillon

To Whom It May Concern:

Hi there. Please acknowledge receipt of this request.

Thank you,

Bailey Pillon

Hi Farrah,

Thank you so much for your help with this request. I sincerely appreciate it.

Thank you,

Bailey Pillon

To Whom It May Concern:

I appreciate the response and I do realize it is by now well past the 90 days for appeal; however, I find it quite difficult to get through to SAMSHA. I am hoping to seek to you for guidance as I cannot find a complaint mechanism for which to file which would rather strangely fall under SAMSHA’s jurisdiction.

That said I am hoping that you can clarify the below as far as MROs:

1. Can an MRO possess an MD yet not a license to practice to medicine in the State of Florida in which they are practicing? To be said in other words, is it permissible or a job an individual with an MD yet no license to practice medicine to function as an MRO? I am aware an MD can legally perform certain jobs without residency and therefore without a license to practice medicine, as I understand it. However, it is unclear to me whether an individual can possess an MD yet no license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. The Florida Department of Health couldn’t affirmatively verify the MRO in question as well.

2. It is stated in an AAMRO’s training as far as certification that there is some obligation to an individual undergoing drug testing under the pretext of reasonable suspicion. To what degree is an MRO obligated, if at all, to ensure that an individual’s fifth amendment right if it occurred in a public facility that isn’t specifically run by the government, but is entrenched in government regulation and oversight by virtue of it being a healthcare facility.

3. What is the disciplinary action against a healthcare facility that objectively and provably fell below the legal criteria of reasonable suspicion by law and therefore at most met mere suspicion which is direct violation of SAMSHA’s guidelines as well as law.

4. If not you, I respectfully request a contact within SAMSHA or the HHS as, to my knowledge, a complaint cannot be filed within SAMSHA’s jurisdiction ironically and it is quite difficult to get through to the HHS regarding the above and it is seemingly a contrived and arbitrary complaint mechanism despite being as increasingly articulate and succinct, within reason, and although I can understand the volume of complaints and workload they likely work with, it borders on rationality.

5. I realize raising the fifth amendment as a violation of civil rights, especially within the context of employment, is an exceedingly difficult endeavor and I have objective knowledge that it falls out of the scope of the EEOC. I also realize it can be a rather complex and nuanced subject, and I am in no way seeking legal advice here. However, at the minimum, it does at the minimum objectively and provably fall below the legal standard of reasonable suspicion. Therefore, due to violating law and SAMSHA’s guidelines which must be involuntarily complied with by virtue of the healthcare facility in question possessing federal contracts and/or grants then I’d expect, despite not being an attorney, that the healthcare facility face disciplinary action as deemed by either SAMSHA or the HHS. I hereby request to know the proper complaint process or more amenably, the appropriate personnel to contact due to difficulty seeking recourse through SAMSHA and continual redirection by the HHS and OFCCP under the DOL.

To be frank, it doesn’t seem to phase SAMSHA whether law or their guidance can said to be definitively violated, and that is simply not just immoral, failure on their part to enforce the very law and guidelines with which they have oversight and jurisdiction. It honestly doesn’t inspire much confidence that a federal agency simply has no recourse I can find nor do other appropriate federal agencies care to make it factually known that any grievance process that is grounded within reality and rationality actually exists.

Sincerely,

Bailey Pillon

Furthermore and lastly,

How can it possible for one to be unable to request their own Medical Records directly from SAMSHA and even the precise SAMSHA-approved facility, which happens to be a Quest Diagnostics facility? This despite escalating the issue to a supervisor at the specific facility and stating it under penalty as well multiple forms of identification. They claim that ‘no records exist’ which to be stated bluntly, is known to be a lie. That in itself I believe is a complaint against SAMSHA in just that context itself.

Sincerely,

Bailey Pillon