July 7, 2026·2:25-CV-00035-ABJ·Panel Decision·Scott M. Matheson, Jr.·By Maria Santos
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a district court dismissal of a negligence claim involving commercial driver drug testing. The appellate panel held that the lower court erred by relying on facts not alleged in the complaint to justify the dismissal.
William Douglas Johnson III sued Regional Supplemental Services for negligence after the company reported a drug test refusal to the FMCSA Clearinghouse. Johnson alleged the company inaccurately reported his test as a refusal to take an additional test, when the first sample was actually valid. The district court dismissed the case, reasoning that the company had a duty to report confrontational behavior as a refusal.
The court’s reasoning
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and accepted the facts alleged in Johnson’s complaint as true. The court found the district court committed error by adopting a new factual basis for the refusal—confrontational behavior—that was not the reason reported to the FMCSA. The appellate panel emphasized that an employer has a non-delegable duty to report the specific determination it made, and the court cannot substitute a different reason to support a dismissal.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that employers cannot alter the stated basis for a drug test refusal report after the fact to defend against negligence claims. It ensures that the scope of a negligence claim is defined by the actual report submitted to the FMCSA rather than post-hoc justifications.
