Skip navigation
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct - Header

Indiana Department of Toxicology Drug Test Errors 2004-2006

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
From:
To:
Date:

Killllm:KLliH.i.JJa.t::L.
Method Peter'
Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:02:59 AM

Pete,
Nati mentioned to me that there was a problem with drug screen testing of blood and urine samples in
the forensic laboratory. Apparently, the drug screens that were performed by Dana dating from
February through the beginning of May were performed incorrectly (not according to the operating
procedures), and results were apparently reported on these samples. I am not sure how many
samples this affected. Nati was advised to inform you of the situation and to provide you details on the
breadth of the problem. Although I have not been involved with the laboratory since January of this
year (when Nati was hired as the supervisor of the forensic laboratory), I feel the obligation to ensure
that you have been appraised of this situation.

Lisa M. Kamendulis, Ph.D.
Division of Toxicology
Indiana University School of Medicine
63S Barnhill Drive, MS 550
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-274-7824

From:

.~j.0!JJ.Q~r

To:

pumaual Natividad C;
BDS
Monday, May 17, 20044:11:42 PM

Subject:
Date:

I had asked that you send me a daily update of what's going on. I haven't gotten anything yet.
MUST get this information, even if no testing was done on that day.
After thinking about the condition of the P-Lab, as described in the notes you sent me, I believe that
we need to at least survey all tests done over the three months. How can we be sure that the results
obtained were correct without checking? Contamination in the instrument may have caused some
problems that would not be detectable in looking at the data we have. Please schedule retests of all
80S done in the three months.
I don't know whether I'll be in tomorrow, or any other day this week, because of the jury duty. Please
send the daily emails. If I am in, I'll call you. If not, I'll check the email each evening, and respond as
I can.
Thanks.
Peter F. Method, Ph. D.
Acting Director
Indiana State Department of Toxicology
950 North Meridian Street, Suite 960
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone:
FAX:

(317) 274-7825
(317) 278-2836

From:

MQ.ll:l9sL...2gliir:

To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

lli;illL,Uil U~L!!!.:{IQill1Ji

Papers you sent
Friday, May 21,20044:20:36 PM
Qlood eJn;q sm~!'n., (1escrrill.illl1.;Y,1L, 13.04 .£J"M rd'clI'rmt.xI2

I don't understand why you sent the papers you did, I got all the results from 5/12, What I will need
are the other ones, The spreadsheet you sent me earlier today had only the initial retests, It didn't
include the ones done since 5/12, Those are what I need,
I have reworked the spreadsheet you sent over with the initial 103 results, The revised sheet is
attached, It shows that there were 18 of that initial set that were discrepant, rather than the 16 you
Initially concluded,
I have a question, You identified with an asterisk the discrepancies (actually, all but 2), and you had a
note saying that the ones with the asterisk had already been confirmed to be negative by GC/MS, I
assume this includes the ones that were positive initially, but were found to be negative on 80S
retest. The ones that were negative initially would not have been run by GClMS, Is this correct?
I will plan to come over on Monday morning to go over this with you, It's difficult to communicate by
email. I'll be over about 9:30,
Peter F, Method, Ph,D,
Acting Director
Indiana State Department of Toxicology
950 North Meridian Street, Suite 960
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone:
FAX:

(317) 274-7825
(317) 278-2836

BLOOD DRUG SCREEN DISCREPANCIES
* confirmed negative

by GC/MS

Initial Test Date
2/10/2004

Drug
Cocaine

CASE #

2110/2004
3110/2004
3/3112004
313112004
2/1012004
21412004
21412004

Cocaine

210/04'
485104 •
313104
627104
226/04'

2/412004

21412004
2/1012004
211012004
2110/2004

2/1012004
2110/2004
2110/2004
2/10/2004
211012004

2110/2004
2/10/2004

2/10/2004
2110/2004
2110/2004
2110/2004
2110/2004
2110/2004
2/1012004
212312004
2123/2004
212312004
212312004
2124/2004
2/2412004
2/2512004

212512004
3/512004
31512004

31512004

Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine

Cannabinoids
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine

Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine

Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine

5113/2004

176104'

187/04
2575/03

194104
195104
177 104
216/04
219/04
229104
235104
239/04
209104
217 104
224/04
227104
230104
231 /04
232/04
233104
236/04
237104
238104
25904
261 104
262104

272104
281 /04
289/04
317104
320104
391104
401 104
407/04

Initial Result
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
positive
positive
negative
positive
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
positive
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive

Date reatested
5/1212004

511212004
5/1212004

5/1212004
5112/2004
5112/2004
5/12/2004

5/1212004
5112/2004
511212004
5112/2004
5112/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004

5112/2004
5112/2004

5112/2004
5/1212004

511212004
5112/2004
5/12/2004
5112/2004
5/1212004

5112/2004
5112/2004

5112/2004
5112/2004
5/1212004
5112/2004
5/12/2004

5/1212004
5112/2004
5112/2004
5112/2004
511212004
511212004
5/1212004
5/1212004

Retest result

positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
positive
negative

negative
negative
negative
negative
negative

negative
negative
positive
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive

Pes to Neg

FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE

Copy of blood drug Screens descrepancy 5 1304 PFM reformaLxls, Page 1 of 3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Neg to Pos
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0

Overall

-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

BLOOD DRUG SCREEN DISCREPANCIES

5/13/2004

* confirmed negative by GC/MS

Initial Test Date

Drug

CASE #

3/5/2004
3/5/2004
3/1012004
3/11/2004
3/11/2004
3/11/2004
3/19/2004
3/19/2004
3/22/2004
3/22/2004
3/22/2004
3/22/2004
3/22/2004
3/22/2004
3/24/2004
3/24/2004
3/26/2004
3/26/2004
3/26/2004
3/26/2004
3/26/2004
3/26/2004
3/31/2004
3/31/2004
3/31/2004
3/31/2004
3/31/2004
3/31/2004
3/31/2004
3/31/2004
3/31/2004
4/5/2004
4/5/2004
4/5/2004
4/15/2004
4/15/2004
4/15/2004
4/15/2004

Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine

411/04
412104
466104
463/04
476/04
477 /04
585/04
587104
506/04
513104
514/04
539/04
504/04
551/04
554/04
586/04
359/04
601 /04
612/04
606/04
611 /04
600/04
354/04
355/04
372/04
624104
507/04
630/04
634/04
635/04
6461.04
652/04
668/04
670/04
679104
369/04
695/04
689104

Initial Result
positive
negative
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
negative
negative
negative
positive
negative

Date reatested

5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/1212004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004
5/12/2004

Retest result
positive
negative
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
negative
negative
negative
positive
negative

Pas to Neg

FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE

Copy of blood drug screens descrepancy 5 13 04 PFM reformat.xls, Page 2 of 3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Neg to Pos

FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Overall

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

BLOOD DRUG SCREEN DISCREPANCIES
, confirmed negative
Initial Test Date
412312004
4123/2004
211012004
2/1012004
211012004
2/10/2004
2110/2004
211012004
2110/2004
2/1012004
2/1012004
211012004
2/10/2004
2/10/2004
2110/2004
21412004
21412004
211012004
212312004
3126/2004
411512004
411512004
4/1512004
411512004
4115/2004
4/15/2004
4/15/2004

Total cases

5/13/2004

by GC/MS

Drug

CASE #

Cocaine
Cocaine
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cannabinoids
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine
Cocaine

731 104
734104
177 04
216104
219104
220104
229104
215/04
218104
224/04
227104
228/04
237/04
238/04
240/04
188104'
199104'
240104'
244104'
396104'
1282103'
682104 '
687102'
688104 '
685104'
694104'
705104'

103

Initial Result
positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive

Date reatested
5/1212004
511212004
511212004
511212004
5/1212004
511212004
5112/2004
5112/2004
511212004
5112/2004
5112/2004
5/1212004
5/1212004
5112/2004
511212004
511212004
511212004
511212004
511212004
5112/2004
511212004
5/1212004
511212004
511212004
511212004
5/1212004
5/1212004

Retest result
positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative
negative

Total discrepancies
Percent

18
17.5

Pos to Neg
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1
TRUE
1

Neg to Pos
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0
FALSE
0

Overall

Wrong Positives

Wrong Negatives

12
11.7

6
5.8

Copy of blood drug screens descrepancy 5 13 04 PFM reformat.xls, Page 3 of 3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

From:

.ti.QjJ1Q_Q... J:'{i.t(~:

To:

.G.!~\!s:JgjU;alv i\

Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Monday, May 24,20041:04:42 PM
JiDS rncilccks S,7A,04.doc

Revised BOS letter

Here is the letter I wanI to print. You have the list of Toxicology Case numbers. Use the date of May
25, 2004 for the letters. Print one for each case number. I might have up to six more later this
afternoon.

Peter F. Method, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Indiana State Department of Toxicology
950 North Meridian Street, Suite 960
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone:
FAX:

(317) 274- 7825
(317) 278-2836

(Date)
Re:

Retest results on Toxicology Case Number (Tox case)

During an internal laboratory review, we discovered that an Analyst who recentiy left the
lab did not perform blood drug screen tests properly during the period February through
April,2004. We have repeated screen testing for all samples from this time period.
Most results were unchanged. However, some tests gave different results from those
reported earlier. The enclosed results for blood drug screens only are to supercede the
ones recorded in the earlier report. These changes do not affect any confirmatory
testing results.
Procedures are in place to prevent such a situation from recurring. In addition, we are
scheduling an external review of our entire lab operation to ensure that our procedures
and training are complete.
If the initial screen test resulted in "Negative", and the retest resulted in "Presumptive
Positive", we will be performing a confirmation test on the sample for further verification.
Those results will be sent as soon as they are available.
Please note that drug screen tests are not conclusive, and that they require confirmation
testing to verify.
We apologize for any inconvenience the earlier results may have caused.
Please call me at 317-274-7825 or the Lab Supervisor, Nati Dumaual at 317-278-2443 if
you have any questions.

Peter F. Method, PhD.
Acting Director

From:

i'.1Q!JlQ.(J.,.. p.(~t!~r

To:

.Q1!!lliluai Ncliivid,K! G

Subject:
Date:

Monday, May 24, 2004 5:16:28 PM

RE: 8DS

retests

I got your phone message. 210/04 will not need a letter. However the other five listed below do need
one, even though for some the confirmation results have been sent. Our records must be complete.
Peter F. Method, Ph.D.
-----Original Message----From: Dumaual, Natividad G
Sent: Monday, May 24, 20042:57 PM
To: Method, Peter
Subject: RE: 60S retests
Sorry, missed your 244/04. You did not put any case number like you did with the rest.. The
210/04 all along was positive and confirmed positive by GCMS. Was reported by February as
positive. No, it was never reported as negative like I told you. When I was transferring the
results in my worksheet j put it as negative because it was indertiminate .. my mistake it should
have been positive. I did cross it out and put pas on top of my neg but failed to see the line
over my neg .. That's why original report to you was negative. Anyway it was done right in the
first place ..
-----Original Message----From: Method, Peter [mailto:pmethod@iupui.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 20043:01 PM
To: Dumaual, Natividad G
Subject: RE: 60S retests
That last item - did you mean 244/04? This is the one that tested negative initially,
but was reported positive.
Now, I'm concerned about this other matter. How did the report get sent out with the
wrong result? Could this have happened with other samples?
Peter F. Method, Ph.D.
-----Original Message----From: Dumaual, Natividad G
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 12:46 PM
To: Method, Peter
Subject: RE: 60S retests

DR M

Okay here they are:

Previous results
reported
Results that are already in the hands of the
Agency
176/04
negative
positive
210/04

RETESTS

negative
226/04
negative
(THC)
1282/03

positive
positive
positive

negative (confirmed
by GCMS)
199/04
positive
negative(confirmed byGCMS)
396104
positive

negative

210104 tested ne9ative previously but the result went out as positive.This was
our error in entering results. When retested it was positive.. So we do not have
to amend a corrected report. We will just do the confirmation.

This results are from the worksheet print out. This tallies with the result from
5/21/04.
If you have are questions, let me know.
ND

-----Original Message----From: Method, Peter [mailto:pmethod@iupui.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 12:58 PM
To: Dumaual, Natividad G
Subject: 8DS retests
I checked the notes you sent me about the errors in the initial list you
sent over. I've corrected those, but there are still a few that appeared
on the initial list that are not the same on the list you gave me this
morning. Here are the differences:
Initially given as Negative, but Presumptive Positive on retest:
176/04 for Cocaine;
210/04 for cocaine;
226/04 for cannibinoids

Initially given as Presumptive Positive, but Negative on retest
(all for cocaine):
1282/03;
199/04;
396/04
On initial list as initially Presumptive Positive, and on retest as
Negative; on final list (9iven to me on 5/24) the results are reversed.

Please look at the results for these discrepancies, and let me know
the actual status.
Thanks.
Peter F. Method, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Indiana State Department of Toxicology
950 North Meridian Street, Suite 960

Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone:
FAX:

(317) 274-7825
(317) 278-2836

From:

1'10.11lQrLE.ct(;.t:

To:

Durnaual N':ltivid;'1(j G

Subject:
Date:

RE:
Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:56:38 PM

Internally, I don't care what you call it. DO NOT use that or any similar term in taiking to anyone from
outside the Department. Using disparaging terms could lead to test resuits being excluded from court.
All we need is for a defense attorney to quote that description when you are testifying. No amount of
other testimony couid erase the impression that would give.
Peter F. Method, Ph.D.
-----Original Message----From: Dumaual, Natividad G
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:33 PM
To: Method, Peter
Subject: RE:
Oh Yeah II! The GC/MS works so good that I call it the SiNKING MACHINE. She never let me
down, and it always work for me during this times, so I thought that that's the best name for it .
THE STINKING MACHINE. If people have a problem with that then I'm sorry I won't change
the name, and I will always call her THE STINKING MACHINE ..
Nati

From: Method, Peter [mailto:pmethod@iupui.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:52 AM
To: Dumauai, Natividad G
Subject: FW:
I got this request yesterday, and have answered the questions. However, I'm not pleased with
the phrase in red below. If that is reasonably accurate, it is not an appropriate way to discuss
our problems with clients, and it is inaccurate. There are many instruments (not machines) in
our lab, though only one GC/MS. Of greater concern is the way it is worded. If the description
"stinking machine" was used, that can imply that the instrument is not a good one (though I
realize that wasn't intended).
The comment, if accurate, was probably due to frustration. However, everyone in the lab
needs to be civil and direct in answering such inquiries. For instance "With limited resources
and fixed funding, our turn-around times have increased." If that doesn't satisfy them, refer
them to me.
Thanks.
Peter F. Method, Ph.D.
-----Original Message----From: McClure, Rebecca [mailto:bmcclure@pac.IN.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:27 PM
To: Method, Peter
Subject:
Hi Pete.
A prosecutor called our office last week and raised some questions concerning your lab that I
hope you can answer for us.

It seems this prosecutor's office submitted a blood sample to your lab for testing. They
received from your lab a preliminary/screening report saying that the sample contained meth.
The prosecutor's office requested confirmatory testing on June 14. Last week the prosecutor
called your lab to ascertain when they could anticipate the final report on the testing of this
sample. She was told that it would be 6 months before a final report would be issued. ,>

Here are the questions that the prosecutor poses:
1. Are drug samples run in lots (by the kind of drug the analyst anticipates he/she will
find in the sample)?
2.

Is there a timetable - as to when particular drug screens are run?

3.
4.

How is it determined when a particular sample will be tested?
Will your lab do a confirmatory test on a sample without first running a screening test?

I will look forward to hearing from you and will plan to forward your responses to the prosecutor
who called.
Thanks, Becky McClure

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

!:'1(:.\hilll.. . P.Cll:::l
!lD5_~Q,Jji~

IPAC letterFriday, October 14, 2005 4:54:37 PM

t:1Q.0.t.,lLl9..I.."l1il.l..il:llC:-:L2fLQ5_:Jill!QYL:.liJ2ELtCJ..<.Qm:

Here is the lelter I have prepared for IPAC. Do you have any recommendations for wording" (I
haven't checked yet for typos.)
When I get back from Nashville, I will decide what we can do with available funds. I should also know
whether there is a surplus GC/MS available; Jason Barclay, Mitch Daniels' Legal Counsel, is getting
tllat information.
Concerning the Advisory Panel, I got a call fro Steve Johnson. He suggests that someone on the
Governor's Council should select the panel. That may be a sticking point. We'll see.
Peter F. Method, Ph.D.
Acting Director
tndiana State Department of Toxicology
950 North Meridian Street, Suite 960
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone:
FAX:

(317) 274-7825
(317) 278-2836

From:
To:
SUbject:
Date:
Attachments:

!:J!2lliQI.t..J~l,js..:i
~.l':lli:;!liilllJS.,.

IPAC letter revision
Friday, October 28, 2005 10:48:49 AM
Jj.0.d..!n£Lt!JU1JJ:l~L~10~.Q2.:.11)1h)lL_\.H.!JCJ.1CLd.0{

How does this one feel?
Peter F. Method, Ph,D.
Acting Director
Indiana State Department of Toxicology
950 North Meridian Street, Suite 960
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone:
FAX:

(317) 274-7825
(317) 278-2836

(date)

Mr. Steve Johnson
Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys' Council
302 West Washington Street
Room E205
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Dear Mr. Johnson:
This is a follow-up to our meeting on September 26.
First of all, thanks to you, Becky and Joel for the excellent information you
provided about your concems regarding our current operation. Here are
some ways in which we are addressing the six concerns we discussed.
1. There were two samples from Warren County for which initial negative
Cannabinoids results were erroneously reported as negative. Though
these are only two results out of thousands of tests performed by OUI'
department, the errors are not acceptable to us. Upon investigation of
these two samples, Toxicology Case Numbers 1681/05 and 1744/05,
we have found the cause, and have implemented changes to prevent
this type of error from reoccurring.
2. Our confirmation tum-around times are greater than everyone would
like them to be, including us. We are obtaining a second instrument
(Gas chromatograph with Mass Selective detector - GC/MS), which
will allow for more testing to be performed, though availability of
analysts might limit the improvement. Any information that you could
provide about closed cases would assist in this process.
3. Prioritization of confirmation testing is needed. The addition of a
second GCIMS will help with this. We will also be requesting some
guidance from submitting officers or prosecutors on the order in Which
confirmation testing is performed in those cases in which there are
multiple drug classes that are Presumptive Positive on screen tests. It
may be that confirming one or two classes would provide all the
information needed for a particular case. Since confirmation of each
class takes a significant amount of time, prioritizing this testing could
significantly decrease the time to obtain needed results; it could also
assist in improving overall turn-around time for confirmations.
4. We are also making changes to improve tum-around time on drug and
alcohol screen tests. With the recent hiring of a technician to replace

the one that left during the Summer, and with another technician now
able to perform tests after her wrist surgery, the turn-around should
improve. We are also hiring a person to handle paperwork now done
by Technicians, which will allow them to spend their time doing testing.
5. My availability for testimony is limited, as we all know. We discussed
the possibility of using faculty members of the Department of
Pharmacology and Toxicology for assistance. I am presently
evaluating how this could be done, and should have a detailed plan by
early November.
6. An Advisory Panel for the State Department of Toxicology is a good
idea. I am planning to implement this before the end of the year.
With these changes, we should see improved turn-around for laboratory
samples and more availability for testimony over the next few months.
I trust that this information will assist you in discussions with your Board
and other Prosecutors about our Department. I will keep you informed
about progress on each of these items. Do not hesitate to contact me if
you have questions, comments, or suggestions.
Thank you again for your important input.

Sincerely,

Peter F. Method, Ph.D.
Acting Director

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

.Q\.!!llilllilL.. h!.iiIi,{l\J~1.d, ..G
.t1ethoc! Pder
RE: Anthony Sibley
Monday, July 24, 2006 2:26:37 PM

Dr Method,
Our report shows positive for cocaine and opiates. The order was blood
drug acreeen and alcohol.
On 6/7 the blood alcohol was tested none detected and reported as none
detected. The problem that we have in our data base is when you hit none
detected on our panel blood drug screen which includes alcohol, everything
will report as none detected. In other words we were not careful and did not
detect that everything went out as none detected on June 23.
On June 29 according to our chain of custody, we did the blood drug
screen by Randox and reported as presumptive positive for cocaine and
opiates and that is the July 7 report that they received.
I send an e-mail to Attorney Zych already explaining the problem.
Everybody was advised in the lab abou t this problem and hopefully aware of
the consequences.
Nati

-----Original Message----From: Method, Peter [!lli1ill:Q.;p.ms;,thod (dli URli i. E'd u]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 20069:36 AM
To: Dumaual, Natividad G
Subject: FW: Anthony Sibley
I talked with NMS. Their test code 1866 is a screen for about 200 drugs
- both therapeutic and abuse. Cost is $89. Please send a quote to Mr.
Zych, at the Marion County Prosecutor's Office.
Thanks.
Peter F. Method, Ph.D.

-----Original Message----From: Edward Zych [mailto:EZY£:I-I(dllndY9mLOlQ]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:29 PM
To: Method, Peter
Subject: Anthony Sibley
We sent a sample of his blood to be tested at your lab. The results
came back negative on all screens.
1666/06
However, all parties who came into contact with him felt that he was
impaired on some sort of drug.
He was driving at least 80mph in a 35mph zone, he hit one car in the
road, was going across all lanes of traffic, hit another car then hit my
victims car at 80mph and killed him.
He was paranoid, kept saying people were after him, he had the "1000
yard stare", he could not sit still and when told that he killed someone

he laughed.
I know your lab does not test for all substances. We think he might be
on PCP or a hallucinogenic drug.
Can you recommend a lab we can send our blood to for further testing for
substances you dont normally test for?
I would like a iab that tests for as broad a sample of drugs as
possible.
Ed
Deputy Prosecutor Edward Zych
Marion County Prosecutor's Office
OVWI Fatality Prosecutor
Suite 160
251 E. Ohio St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

l2illllillli1lJ.'tlIJ.yjQll{LG.
J::h'illlQ.d,J:f:.!lli
Incident
Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7: 12: 30 AM
!lKl[j(~_lLlI:W)LLt:b_G[YJ..l.D.lD.n.0,~!fLC

We made a mistake on one of the alcohol analysis. I sent out an explanation to submitting officer
and Prosecutors office People are stressed uut in 1I11s laboratory, Dr. Method and there will be more
mistakes made if nothing has been done on techs .. they are overworked. I won't be surprised if they
start quitting because of stress.
Nati Dumaual
Supervisor I Laboratory Manager
Indiana State Department of Toxicology
635 Barnhill Dr.
Rm MS 553
Indianapolis, IN 46202
(317)-278-2440 (office)
(317)-278-2443 (lab)

10/1 0/06

Officcr B.C Messick
Fort Wayne I'D
1320 E Creighton Ave
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46803

cc: Karcn Richards
Allen Co. Prosecutor Oflice
3,,1 Floor Keystone Bldg
602 S Calhoun St
Fort Wayne, Ind 46802-1715

Subject: Wills, Robert A
Case 1/
061'141703
Toxicology Ii 3200/06
DcaI' Sir/Madam:
A human error was made dlll'ing the analysis of the spccimen of the
above subject. Thc crror was immcdiately discovered after the report of none
detected on the Blood ethanol was mailed to the above submitting ofncer and
Prosecutor. After repeating the analysis it was found out that the true valuc was 307
mg/dL( 0.30%).
We rcgret so much making a significant error and I immcdiately counseled the
Technician who performed the analysis. After this incident some minor procedural
changes arc being made such as checking the label of the specimcn whcn you takc out
from the refrigerator, when you put it in the rack and when your start pipelling thc blood
specimcn into the vials and when you load the vial into the instrument samplcr..
We do hope that this error will not happen again.

Sincerely,
Natividad G. Dumaual
Supervisor
Depratment of Toxicology

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

lliwlilllilUJili.iy.!ilil£LG
f>1p.thoc! P"'[C"l
More Errors!!
fVlond<ly, November' 20, 2006 11:00:49 AM
]DQ(!tD.L1J.,lJ.1WIKi~!J.O(

lLl£iili:'llLfi..1.112Qili)_L~!.Qf
Jill;iJj~llUL5...112D.Q0.,ilQ!.:

More corrected reports.
nati

Nati Dumaual
Supervisor / Laboratory Manager
Indiana State Department of Toxicology
635 Barnhill Dr.
Rm MS 553
Indianapolis, IN 46202
(317)-278-2440 (office)
(317)-278-2443 (lab)

'r;

Officer Eric Harden
'T'rafalgar Police Dept
1',0 Box 7
Trafalgar,ln 46181

Lance D, Hamncr
Johnson Co, Prosecutor Office
Oren Wright Bldg
80 SJackson St
Franklin, IN 46131

Subject: Colcman, Joseph
Tox casc /I 3241/06

Dear Sir:
On October 20 th ,2006 we send out a Drug Screen report of None Detected for the
above subject,
A technical error was made in loading samples in our instrument. Aftcr repeating the
wholc batch of analysis, Cannabinoids was detected,
We arc sorry fc)r the inconvenience and I made somc necessary changes in our
Standard Operating Procedures, to check more than 3 times the names and number of
subject belc)I'e loading onto the instrument and to make recommendations to usc
barcodes on all our samples,

Sincerely,

Nati (J, D.ul1aual
Supervisor, State 'Ioxicology

Officer Timothy Byrne
Carmel I'D
3 Civic S-luare
Suite 134
Carmel. Ind 46032

Sonia J.Leerkamp
Hami [ton Co Prosecutor OJ'flee
One llam i[ton Co. S:)
Noblesville. In 46060-2330

Subject: Edmunds, Elizabeth
Tox case # 3338/06

Dear Sir:
On October 20 th ,2006 we send out a Drug Screen report of None Detected for the
above subject.
A technical error was made in loading samples in our instrument. After repeating the
whole batch of analysis, Cannabinoids and Benzodiazepeines were detected.
We are sorry for the inconvenience and I made some necessary changes in our
Standard Operating Procedures, to check more than 3 times the names and number of
subject before loading onto the instrument and to make recommendations to use
barcodes on all our samples.

Sincerely,

Nati G. D.lmaual
Supervisor, State Toxicology

Ofllcer: Brian Swisher

Lance Hamner

Greenwood PD
186 Surina Way
Greenwood, IN

Johnson Co. Prosecutor Off1ce
Oren Wright Building
80 S. Jacksun St
Franklin, IN 46 I 31

Subject: Edmunds, Elizabeth
Tox case II 3237/06

Dear Sir:
On October 20 th ,2006 we send out a Drug Screen report of None Detected fiJr the
above subject.
A technical error was made in loading samples in our instrument. Aftcr repeating the
whole batch of analysis, Cannabinoids and Bcnzodiazepines and Methadone were
detected.
We are sorry for the inconvenience and I made some necessary changes in our
Standard Operating Procedures, to chcck more than 3 times the names and num bel' 0 l'
subject before loading onto the instrumcnt and to make recommendations to use
barcodes on all our samples.

Sincerely,

Nati G. f).llnaual
Supervisor, State Toxicology

From:

12!J1.lhllhiL~d..G

To:

Hc.U1Qd p(.!('!

Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

IiliKlL.I1ll:lliJcl.Jl.
Enol's in ttle lab ( 2X)
Wednesday, November 15,20069:20:37 AM

inDIO"!!)! 1\'!2Ql..L.Ultl'iLJ.HHlli.dDL

This occurred again when Viola was out due to injury. Cheryl has to do Blood volatiles and Drug
screens. I guess it was too much to do two tasks at the same time, result"' Made an error. It's about
time for us to examine our priorities. Instruments?/ Technicians? Or Both.
Vacations/sick/injury Is all unavoidable. No matter 110W I tell our Techs to be careful if we are
overwhelmed by samples/deadlines to meet etc, we are bound to make mistakes, I guess if this is
acceptable to you and the Department then I don't have to worry,
I have been a Toxicology Supervisor in other Laboratories and I never had this thing happened,
error after error, The difference? Because I have enough Tech's to distribute the job and do it
accurately and efficiently,
I want that the Toxicology lab have a good reputation, but if I don't have enough Techs' to do the
job accurately and efficiently and less pressure then I guess I can't do anything, I just want you to
know that if an error occurs again in the future I won't bother you anymore, You will not hear anything
from me again, I will just keep on trying to explain to Government agencies and do the best I can.
Nat!

Nat! Dumallal
Supervisor / Laboratory Manager
Indiana State Department of Toxicology
635 Barnhill Dr.
Rm MS 553
Indianapolis, IN 46202
(317)-278-2440 (office)
(317)-278-2443 (lab)

11/15/06

Officer Jeremy S. King
Evansville I'D

cc: Stanley M. Levco
Yandcrburgh Co Prosecutor

Of'llce
Adm inistra ti on 1\1i Id ing,
I NW

15 N. W Martin Luther King Blvd.
Room 108
Evansville, IN 47708
Martin Luther King Blvd.

Evansvi lie, Indiana 47708
Subject: Gonzalcs, Gabino
06-24575
Case II
Toxicology II 3470/06
Dear Sir/Madam:
Aller I received your e-mail, I immediately investigated the case and
found out that a human error was made during the analysis of the specimen of the above
subject. The error was a report of none detected on thc Blood ethanol was mailed to
the above submitting officer and Prosecutor. We immcdiately repeated the analysis and
found out that the true value was 282 mg/dL( O.28°!.,).
We regret so much making a signilicant errol' and I immediatcly counseled the
Technician who per!clrmed the analysis. Aller this incident some minor procedural
changes are being made such as checking the label ofthc specimcn when you takc out
from the reli'igcrator, when you put it in the rack, when you start pipetting the blood
specimen into the via Is and when you load the vial into the instrumcnt samplcr..
Wc do hopc that this crror will not happcn again.

Sinccrcly,
Natividad G. Dumaual
Supervisor
Department of Toxicology

 

 

Federal Prison Handbook - Side
Advertise Here 2nd Ad
Prisoner Education Guide side