Can a doctor/nurse legally force me to take a drug test? I am in California, and had an appointment today to establish care with my new doctor. The nurse checking me in noticed my high blood pressure and sores on my face from psoriasis, both conditions documented in my medical history, and decided I must be high on meth. She asked me to take a urine test for meth, which I refused. She then threatened to have be detained by the local sheriff and tested against my will if I did not comply. I took the test because I don't have time for to deal with their... uh, stuff... I have no history of drug use or criminal record. Is there any legal basis at all for what I was subjected to today? And what should I do the next time the medical community tries to extort money from me? Paying for the test, etc.
Let us assume that you were high on meth at the time, that you were acting normally (that is, were not smashing windows or other such criminal things), but you had mouth sores and high blood pressure. Let's also assume that you are docile, but don't consent: so you stick around. Even with all of these assumptions working against you, the sheriff cannot force you to take a drug test without a warrant. When he goes to the judge, the judge will not issue a warrant to force you to take a test. Drug tests are forms of searches, which are protected by the 4th Amendment, and they basically require "probable cause" to the effect that you had committed a crime. Given your description of the circumstances, there is no such probable cause (i.e. "most likely that it is true"). The threat to call the sheriff was empty, though perhaps sincerely believed (many people sincerely believe lots of wrong things about the law). You can consent (sounds like you did): as far as I know, if you give in to a suggestion from a nurse that the sheriff will make you take the test (an untruth), that would not invalidate evidence derived from a voluntary search. Every citizen is expected (unreasonably) to know and follow the law, and it is expected that you will know that you have the right to refuse, so you cannot say "But I didn't know I could refuse". You always have the right to refuse any medical treatment or testing. This is true even if your insurance requires you to take a certain test. There could be contractual consequences to violating the contract with your insurance company, but again you cannot be compelled to take a test or undergo a procedure because an insurance company "requires" you to. If, for example, your insurance company requires you to take a meth-abuse screening test, then if such a contract condition is legal in California, refusing to take the test could lead to some insurance problems, like they would cancel your policy. As for financial liability for the test that you didn't really want but agreed to, there is a chance that you could argue in court that you were coerced into the test and thus your apparent consent was not real. You have the right to refuse the test; if the other party, "whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state", then they crossed a legal line and you can sue them, plus any "agreement" that is coerced is null in the courts, and the putative debt arising from the test is also null. You simply have to establish that you were coerced, and not convinced.
The German Bar Association published an article about your rights in traffic controls (Polizei­kon­trolle: Das sind Ihre Rechte, July 2018) and an article about your rights in identity checks (Was darf die Polizei bei einer Perso­nen­kon­trolle?, June 2018). Traffic check You do have to answer questions for determining your identity (see section about identity check). show the car registration document. show your driving licence. leave the vehicle (if asked to). show the legally required equipment (medical kit etc.). You don’t have to answer questions like "Why do you think you were stopped?" or "Where are you coming from?". admit a crime/offense. agree to a test (breathalyser, urine, blood, pupil reaction etc.). let them enter or search through your vehicle (unless in the case of Gefahr im Verzug, i.e., something like exigent circumstances). If you don’t want to answer a question, they recommend to say that you don’t want to answer. If you don’t agree to a test, the police may bring you to a police station where they may e.g. take a blood sample. Identity check You do have to answer questions for determining your identity, i.e.: name birthday birthplace home address nationality show your identity document (if carrying it with you). You don’t have to answer any other questions (e.g., where you are coming from or going to). If you don’t answer the questions for determining your identity, the police may bring you to a police station, and/or frisk you (only allowed in certain circumstances).
If they do a treatment which you didn't consent to and harm you they risk being sued. As such, they get you to sign a consent form to prove you agreed to the treatment and were informed about what was going on and any material risks. They had implied verbal consent from you which is enough legally, but there's a risk that if it went wrong you could claim you didn't consent, they lied about what treatment you had, and they illegally did it. As an example, they often drip something into your eye which can sometimes cause blurry vision for a while. If you had blurry vision after and crashed your car you could theoretically sue them because you say you didn't consent to that and they have no proof you did.
D should be subpoenaing anything and everything they need from anyone and everyone, including E. No matter how good terms you are on, if you are involved in a lawsuit you should not be relying on anyone's good faith to supply you what you need. Suppose you ask nicely and they say yes but, for whatever reason, they don't supply them by your court date. Without a subpoena, if you ask for a continuance the judge will say "tough t*^%^$s"; with a subpoena they will say " Yes certainly, oh, and Mr Sheriff, here is a warrant for the documents, go and get them for me please. Oh and a warrant for the arrest of the person who ignored my subpoena." Where do you want to be?
1) Why would an Orthodontia provider want to receive this payment at all in the first place? I was thinking maybe tax reasons. Less cynically, medical providers request that insurance payments be sent directly to them (and you routinely agree to allow them to do so in the fine print of your insurance contract and the paperwork you will out with the provider), every time that they request payment through insurance, because it is extremely uncommon for someone to pay in full and then come up with insurance through which a claim can be submitted. It is set up this way, in part, because medical providers have a lien on insurance payments made to compensate any not previously paid for services that they provided. So, anyway, bureaucratic inertia causes it to happen this way in your quirky case where it really doesn't make sense. Also, insurance companies routinely see claims failed by providers and handle them uncritically, while rarely seeing claims filed by insured for services that have already been rendered and paid for, and so look at those claims more critically, so it was probably in your interest to have the provider make the claim for you on your behalf. More cynically, even if the medical providers doesn't get to keep the money, holding onto it helps their cash flow. It may allow them to borrow less money for operations, or to invest it and earn a return on it. Having money has value even if it is temporary. 2) If they never end up sending me the claim refund, do I have any legal power to fight against this? I have all of the original receipts and an EOP report. Yes. You could write a demand letter, including copies of your evidence, and if they refused to comply within a reasonable time, you could sue, either with a lawyer, or in small claims court. You would have an extremely strong chance of prevailing and in all likelihood they would refund the money before the case went to trial rather than fighting a losing case in court. You have solid evidence that they were paid twice for the same thing. You don't need to bring the insurance company into it (which would make the case much more complicated). You just need to show that your local medical provider got a double recovery and didn't provide a refund. Six to eight weeks is unreasonable when they have already been paid twice. But, given the cost, aggravation and delay associated with suing, you might want to give them some time to provide a refund, although the next monthly billing cycle for them ought to be more than generous accommodation from you.
There is a slim chance that it is truish, depending on whose law you are asking about, and also depending on the facts (if the drug was in a baggie, it's unclear; it is was mixed with the soda, it's clear and it's true). As far as I know, the "baggie in can" theory has not been put to the appellate test (perhaps that is evidence that the can does not count). However, in the case Chapman v. US, 500 U.S. 453, defendant was convicted of the sale of LSD-laced blotter paper, and was sentenced accosting to the 5.7 gram weight of the blotter paper, not the 50 milligram weight of the LSD that it contained. SCOTUS upheld the sentencing based on the higher weight, holding that "The statute requires the weight of the carrier medium to be included when determining the appropriate sentencing for trafficking in LSD", because the statute is stated in terms of a "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount" (here, 21 USC 841, are some of the current laws, which repeated use the formula "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of"). The question that would arise is whether a can containing a bag of something is a "substance" or "mixture". The ordinary meaning of "mixture" precludes that interpretation, but of course you also have to look at the legislative history to determine what Congress's intent was in writing these laws. Saying that a can with a bag is a "substance" is also counter-intuitive, but not as plainly unreasonable as calling a can and a bag a "mixture". In Chapman, the court observed that "Congress clearly intended the dilutant, cutting agent, or carrier medium to be included in the weight of those drugs for sentencing purposes", but again you might interpret "carrier medium" as referring to something other than "the means of carrying the drug" – "carrier medium" is not statutorily defined, and its "plain meaning" is broad (but also note that the statute doesn't mention "carrier medium"). In its ruling, the court appeals to "the history of Congress's attempts to control illegal drug distribution", and a careful study of all of the pertinent documents for this case might definitively rule in vs. out an interpretation that the weight of the container is to be included. An obvious ludicrous consequence of including container weight is that if you are arrested for possession of a trace amount of a drug, found in your car, the weight of the car is to be considered and you get life in prison. It is plausible that the officer has a vague acquaintance with the Chapman-type ruling, and has misapplied the law, thus he has a good-faith belief that his claim is legally correct (thus he did not lie, he was simply wrong). Perhaps some DA has pursued the "drug plus can-weight" theory, but I doubt that has happened.
Law enforcement sometimes use "pacing" as a speed enforcement tool. The basic idea is that they consistently drive a certain speed - which is at or above the speed limit and notice that the "alleged speeder" is either keeping pace or exceeding the pace. The details are complicated and a police officer would know them much better than me. But basically They have to calibrate their speedometer - because if their speedometer is broken pacing is obviously worthless. They need to bring the calibration results to court. Not having those calibration records for your speedometer means that many police departments will be reluctant to issue a speeding ticket to the other motorists. They rely on the fact that most state laws allow law enforcement leeway to exceed the posted limit. Not being a lawyer or a police officer, I do not know the exact circumstances, but if they were not allowed to slightly exceed the limit for pacing then logically every pacing enforcement should result in 2 tickets - one being for the officer. If you can swear that your speedometer is good then they can use that evidence to write you a speeding ticket, because whatever allowances the law allows law enforcement for pacing are not granted to you. I am sure they can overcome the calibration issue with regard to a ticket issued to you by your certification that the speedometer is correct. If they issued a ticket to me based on your certification that your speedometer was correct, I would call bullshit. Talking to the police can only hurt you.
I think the officer is probably lying, not just mistaken, but they are not required to always be truthful. In addition to the law against possessing ID with intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime, it is also against the law to be knowingly in possession of a stolen credit card, or any other property. An example of a strict-liability possession crime, which the officer knows of, is that it is a crime to possess heroin, period. I am skeptical that the officer actually believes that there is a law making it a crime to be in possession of a credit card with permission, and suspect that he thinks it is stolen.