The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by transportation business owner Joseph Marks against Clinichek Corp., doing business as Doctors Review Services, in a dispute over drug testing reporting procedures.
In an unpublished per curiam opinion filed Feb. 2, the three-judge panel upheld the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas's decision to dismiss Marks' complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The case arose after Clinichek reported a positive marijuana test result to the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse maintained by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Marks, who operates individually and through his business entities Transnational Express L.L.C. and TransNatEx L.L.C., sought both injunctive and declaratory relief to challenge the reporting.
Marks argued that Clinichek exceeded its authority under federal regulations when it reported the positive test result to the FMCSA clearinghouse. He also claimed the company's actions violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how federal agencies create and enforce regulations.
The plaintiff further contended that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint without specifically addressing his ultra vires claim - a legal theory that challenges actions taken beyond an entity's legal authority or powers.
The Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse serves as a central repository for information about commercial driver violations of federal drug and alcohol testing requirements. The database, maintained by FMCSA, contains records of drivers who have violated Department of Transportation drug and alcohol testing requirements and information about whether those drivers have completed the return-to-duty process.
Commercial drivers are subject to mandatory drug and alcohol testing under federal regulations designed to ensure highway safety. Medical review officers play a crucial role in this system by reviewing and interpreting drug test results before they are reported to employers and regulatory authorities.
The dispute highlights the complex regulatory framework governing commercial transportation and drug testing procedures. Transportation companies and their drivers must navigate federal requirements while medical review services operate under specific guidelines for reporting test results.
Marks' challenge to the reporting authority reflects broader tensions in the commercial transportation industry over drug testing procedures and regulatory compliance. Companies subject to federal motor carrier regulations must balance operational needs with strict safety requirements.
The case was heard by Circuit Judges Edith Brown Clement, Andrew Oldham, and James Ho. The panel's decision was issued as a per curiam opinion, meaning it was unsigned and represents the unanimous view of the three judges.
Under Fifth Circuit rules, the opinion was not designated for publication, which means it has limited precedential value for future cases. Such opinions typically address straightforward applications of existing law rather than establishing new legal principles.
The appellate court applied the standard Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, which requires courts to accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true while determining whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief. The dismissal suggests that even viewing the facts in Marks' favor, the court found insufficient legal grounds to proceed with the case.
The Administrative Procedures Act claim appeared central to Marks' legal theory, as this federal law provides the framework for challenging agency actions and regulatory enforcement. However, the appeals court's affirmance indicates that Marks failed to establish a viable APA violation based on the facts alleged.
The ultra vires argument, which Marks claimed the district court failed to address adequately, represents another avenue for challenging actions taken beyond legal authority. The Fifth Circuit's affirmance suggests this claim also lacked sufficient legal foundation to survive the motion to dismiss.
For transportation industry participants, the decision reinforces the authority of medical review officers to report positive drug tests to federal clearinghouses as required by regulatory frameworks. It also demonstrates the high bar plaintiffs face when challenging established reporting procedures under federal transportation safety regulations.
The case originated in the Southern District of Texas under case number 4:25-CV-1248 before being appealed to the Fifth Circuit as case number 25-20290. The quick resolution suggests the legal issues were relatively straightforward despite Marks' multiple arguments for reversal.