Your voice has a chance to be heard now! scamion.com - we bring changes together.
report scam| Country | United States |
| State | Kansas |
| City | Overland Park |
| Address | 7500 W 110th St. Ste. 500 |
| Phone | 800.881.0722 |
| Website | http://www.escreen.com |
Escreen of Dallas TX in combination with their MRO in OverlandPark Kansas should be brought up on criminal charges. They seem to be more a racketeering organization than a true drug screening company.
They blatantly disregarded HIPPA and OSHA Law. I was never allowed to speak with their supposed MRO DR.Steven Kracht, only a receptionist (Bridget and a nurse who never would be identified). Never allowed Access to my medical records (OSHA 1910.1020). Also obvious Breech in Chain of Custody...
I was told by the Office in Overland Park Kansas, that my results turned in on a Monday would take 24-72 hours. After a week (8 days later) I was told my test hadn't been conducted by their lab in Dallas TX(sample provided in Minnesota) because the Affidavit form had not been sent by the collecton site officer. (I know for certain it was filled out correctly and sent). After letting their Office know I was in Management (Safety officer) results mysteriously showed up 15 hours later with no new form or sample being sent...
I was told THC was in my system and no other substances detected in a five panel test. I legally take Percocet 4o mg/day. No empirical data ever shown even after a perported GS/MS test wasconducted. Several requests made!
Again I was never allowed to speak to the MRO... Chain of Custody was clearly broken. And a receptionist delivered my perported results.
An employee from Escreen EMRO called my emergency contact without any attempt to reach me to discuss inform me of a positive result. I had a seperate test done in case of such a situation because I have been working on getting the job the cost me for over 3 months. My control test was negative but they said I would need to pay an additonal $150 for another test regardless of perscription information.
My would be employer said they would be happy to pay for another test and told me to call 888 382-2084 or 888 382-2281. Ehe employees would only give me their first names and were all very rude. Stepenie and Becky implied I was lying by claiming their test results are 100 percent accuate. She said contamiantion and false positives are impossible because test they have the tests collected at Lakeside Medical and send them to ALERE.
I asked to talk to her supervisor who would only identify herself as Stephenie. She was very rude from the start and made it clear she couldn't help because their tests are never wrong. I asked her to transfer me to her manager. The manger said her name was Becky. She said Exreen only handles storage, delevery and "medical review on drug tests". She transfered me to "Tasha" who refused all me requests for a copy of my results, details on the testing, conact information for ALERE Toxicology and told me any futher correspondence would need to be submitted in writting unless I agree to pay $150 upfront.
Stay away from this company at all costs. Ask for your tests to be handled and "reviewed" by another company if you come accross them. Tasha and Becky both admitted they only handle the samples but all testing is done by ALERE Toxicology. The samples are collected by a third company and both Escreen employees admitted the provide reviews without any testing of thier own. This means they are collecting $150 per test to simpy add an aditonal risk of contimiantion without providng any legititmite service.
Dr. Stephen J. Kracht notified ConocoPhillips in November of 2013 that I had failed a hair follicle drug test - testing positive for cocaine. He stated, “the incredibly high level of the test,” indicated I was, “a habitual user that probably used it before coming to work,” that day. Even though, Dr. Kracht lost his medical license in 1991 and I had been an exemplary employee for more than a decade, I was terminated without due process.
As a former investigative television reporter with four Associated Press Awards and an Emmy nomination for investigative journalism excellence, https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/reporter-waco-destroyed-no-regrets/ , I began researching hair follicle testing, labs doing the testing and the doctors / medical review officers that sign off on the test results.
Science and simple arithmetic prove test was inaccurate
The lab that conducted my test, Psychemedics, claims its method of testing detects drug use as far back as 3 months or more.
“Drug use can be detected for months and even years past, depending on the length of the hair sample. Psychemedics’ standard test uses a one and a half inch sample of head hair, which provides a 3 month history of drug use.”
https://www.psychemedics.com/hair-drug-testing-facts-faqs/
In 2013, I had already passed hair follicle drug tests in February, May and August. Then allegedly failed the one in November and was fired. At my own expense, I took and passed the same hair test in December, January and February 2014. If hair follicle drug tests really detect drug use for a period of 3 months or more, it’s obvious the November sample tested could not have been mine because of the time span of my tests.
My Hair Tests
Passed 2-6-13
Passed 5-6-13
Passed 8-13-13
Failed 11-13-13
Passed 12-24-13 (Body hair) (4-6 month detection period)
Passed 1-16-14
Passed 2-18-14
Passed 2-26-14 (Fingernail test) (6-8 month detection period)
As you are aware, I was denied the opportunity to scientifically prove the sample was not my hair when ConocoPhillips refused to allow the testing lab, Psychemedics, to release the sample to Penn State University for DNA testing. I had even offered to pay the $5,000 for the test. ConocoPhillips still refused.
It seems unfathomable to me that the company would take the word of someone it knows nothing about (Dr. Kracht) over the word of a 13-year employee with a stellar record.
Within the first two months of being hired by Conoco I wrote a paper that got the company named “Houston’s Best Place to Work” by the Houston Business Journal. An honor the company had tried to win for years. Never even making the Top 10.
When Phillips 66 and Conoco merged it was me that created the “On the Mark” video news program. Using my television background, I wrote, produced and directed every episode, even doing the camera work and editing many of the stories myself. I never once missed a deadline.
I managed the corporate website for two years. Creating content and providing final approval for anything posted on conocophillips.com. Both years it was named a “Fortune 50 Best Website” by Fortune Magazine.
In March of 2010 I kept ConocoPhillips out of a NY Times story about companies directly or indirectly violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. (proof attached)
I was a member of the ConocoPhillips Global Crisis Management Team for a decade.
In 2011 as a newlywed, the company sent me to China to handle media relations after the Bohai Bay oil spill. I was there 11 months and made sure the story never appeared in the U.S. or any country outside of China. When I returned home my wife served me with divorce papers.
Let’s discuss Mr. Kracht - His rating on webmd.com is one star out of a possible five. He claims to have an office in Overland, Kansas but does not accept patients, probably because he has no license. Again, on RateMDs.com he only has one star out of a possible five but he also has numerous complaints about him having a long history of mistakes and carelessness as a medical review officer for drug testing.
Mr. Kracht said my test level indicated I was a habitual user. Actually, after learning how to read the tests and what is required to rule a test positive, I know that the test was borderline positive. It took months before Kracht would provide me documents that actually included the test numbers.
According to the U.S. Justice Department and National Institute of Justice, for a hair drug test to be deemed positive, there has to be a cocaine reading of at least 5ng/10mg and there has to be a cocaine metabolite reading of at least 5ng/10mg. Additionally, to classify a hair follicle drug test as being “Positive,” the metabolite amount must be equal to or greater than 5% of the cocaine amount. If no metabolite is present, the test is automatically “Negative.”
The numbers reported on the Nov. 2013 test were 23.8ng/10mg for cocaine and 1.3ng/5mg on the cocaine metabolite. Those numbers conveniently calculate to 5.5% with 5% being the minimum threshold for a “Positive” result. In contrast, the majority of labs and law enforcement departments consider a habitual user to have a reading of 10,000/pg or greater. With much hesitation, Mr. Kracht provided me the results of the retest, which seems very unprofessional to have the same person in charge of the test also in charge of the retest. This time the numbers were completely different and he changed from ng to pg and from 10mg to mg - but I can calculate. The retest numbers were 3810 pg/mg for cocaine but no numbers for a cocaine metabolite. Remember, if there is no cocaine metabolite, the test is “Negative.” I should have been notified and rehired when the retest showed no cocaine metabolites. Also, 3810 pg converts to 3.8 ng not the 5%ng required. For the sake of argument, let’s assume there was a cocaine metabolite and it was the same as the original test 1.3ng/5mg - those numbers calculate to 1.1% not even close to the 5% minimum.
I discovered more peculiar, even suspicious things about my November 13 test. On Psychemedics website the lab claims a 2-3 day turnaround on all tests. The test I took on November 13, 2013 (Friday the 13th) had a 13 day turnaround. What happened to the sample during those 13 days? Also, on the day of the test, November 13, 2013, Lena, in the COP medical center, reported to management that I failed to show up for the test.
Adding insult to injury, the day I was terminated, I was escorted out of the building by Tom Burley of H.R., he seemed to take great pleasure in telling me that I, “would never work in corporate America again.” Explaining that when any potential employer inquired as to why I was terminated, the COP H.R. Department get around federal laws by using a lingo common to H.R. departments. COP H.R. would say “he is not re-hirable” and that the inquiring H.R. Department would understand that to mean one of three things: I either embezzled money, sexually harassed someone or failed a drug test. I guess he was right. I have applied for hundreds of jobs since then and remain unemployed even though I have a masters degree, ten years experience as a member of the media and 20 years experience in corporate communications. I have not collected a penny of unemployment or welfare of any kind. But after putting my daughter through college and 6 plus years of no income I am now forced to sell my house just to survive.
They call from 913-327-5915, it comes up as a scam with Hiya- a phone app. They tell you they are calling from your employer, and your drug test came up positive, but for a few, it can be negative. They want you to call a 888-382-2084. No idea how they get your personal information but they seem to know more than they should. Yes, there are HIPPA laws broken, and extortion type tatics. BE WARE- dont answer- dont give them ANY information!!!
This company gave me a positive test result because I took a pill from an older prescription from the several surgeries I had even though I provided them with all the information requested the Dr informed me he's the owner and that's the result hes giving me then hung up on me everybody beware your job is on the line if your sent here
I was given a drug test for a promontion at work which resulted in a false positive. I tried to resolve this though escreen, but was treated very rudely and told that the over the counter drugs I was using for my flu would not result in a positive test result. I had not used pot in nearly a year since I moved from Colorado and had passed a mouth swab test for Safeway just a few months prior. This not only cost me my promotion but also my job.
Tested + on a DOT screen. They never contacted me first went right to company. The law says I should be contacted first, of course they “called 8 times and left and left 2 messages.” LIARS They may have called 8 times but I ignore numbers I don’t knows because of the shitbags in India sitting around trying to sell garbage. Of course they left NO messages. I also have a scrip but they could care less. So now I’m filing a grievance with the teamsters union, hired a Cambridge MA. Lawyer and am filing for unemployment. As stated to me by the company...”Now that we know this how.can you work for us under the influence of Percocet “ That’s ok I’ll sit back now and take the kiss in the mail. Good job EMRO of Escreen whatever your name is
I have been a collection site for eScreen for 15 years. They have always been fair and accurate. I have read a few of the one-star reviews and have never seen anything like this in our office. eScreen has approximately 3000 test locations, I believe there is more good than bad experiences out there.
Dr. Stephen J. Kracht notified ConocoPhillips in November of 2013 that I had failed a hair follicle drug test - testing positive for cocaine. He stated, “the incredibly high level of the test,” indicated I was, “a habitual user that probably used it before coming to work,” that day. Even though, Dr. Kracht lost his medical license in 1991 and I had been an exemplary employee for more than a decade, I was terminated with no due process.
As a former investigative television reporter with four Associated Press Awards and an Emmy nomination for investigative journalism excellence, https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/reporter-waco-destroyed-no-regrets/ , I began researching hair follicle testing, labs doing the testing and the doctors / medical review officers that sign off on the test results.
Science and simple arithmetic prove test was inaccurate
The lab that conducted my test, Psychemedics, claims its method of testing detects drug use as far back as 3 months or more.
“Drug use can be detected for months and even years past, depending on the length of the hair sample. Psychemedics’ standard test uses a one and a half inch sample of head hair, which provides a 3 month history of drug use.”
https://www.psychemedics.com/hair-drug-testing-facts-faqs/
In 2013, I had already passed hair follicle drug tests in February, May and August. Then allegedly failed the one in November and was fired. At my own expense, I took and passed the same hair test in December, January and February 2014. If hair follicle drug tests really detect drug use for a period of 3 months or more, it’s obvious the November sample tested could not have been mine because of the time span of my tests.
My Hair Tests
Passed 2-6-13
Passed 5-6-13
Passed 8-13-13
Failed 11-13-13
Passed 12-24-13 (Body hair) (4-6 month detection period)
Passed 1-16-14
Passed 2-18-14
Passed 2-26-14 (Fingernail test) (6-8 month detection period)
As you are aware, I was denied the opportunity to scientifically prove the sample was not my hair when ConocoPhillips refused to allow the testing lab, Psychemedics, to release the sample to Penn State University for DNA testing. I had even offered to pay the $5,000 for the test. ConocoPhillips still refused.Let’s discuss Mr. Kracht - His rating on webmd.com is one star out of a possible five. He claims to have an office in Overland, Kansas but does not accept patients, probably because he has no license. Again, on RateMDs.com he only has one star out of a possible five but he also has numerous complaints about him having a long history of mistakes and carelessness as a medical review officer for drug testing.
Mr. Kracht said my test level indicated I was a habitual user. Actually, after learning how to read the tests and what is required to rule a test positive, I know that the test was borderline positive. It took months before Kracht would provide me documents that actually included the test numbers.
According to the U.S. Justice Department and National Institute of Justice, for a hair drug test to be deemed positive, there has to be a cocaine reading of at least 5ng/10mg and there has to be a cocaine metabolite reading of at least 5ng/10mg. Additionally, to classify a hair follicle drug test as being “Positive,” the metabolite amount must be equal to or greater than 5% of the cocaine amount. If no metabolite is present, the test is automatically “Negative.”
The numbers reported on the Nov. 2013 test were 23.8ng/10mg for cocaine and 1.3ng/5mg on the cocaine metabolite. Those numbers conveniently calculate to 5.5% with 5% being the minimum threshold for a “Positive” result. In contrast, the majority of labs and law enforcement departments consider a habitual user to have a reading of 10,000/pg or greater. With much hesitation, Mr. Kracht provided me the results of the retest, which seems very unprofessional to have the same person in charge of the test also in charge of the retest. This time the numbers were completely different and he changed from ng to pg and from 10mg to mg - but I can calculate. The retest numbers were 3810 pg/mg for cocaine but no numbers for a cocaine metabolite. Remember, if there is no cocaine metabolite, the test is “Negative.” I should have been notified and rehired when the retest showed no cocaine metabolites. Also, 3810 pg converts to 3.8 ng not the 5%ng required. For the sake of argument, let’s assume there was a cocaine metabolite and it was the same as the original test 1.3ng/5mg - those numbers calculate to 1.1% not even close to the 5% minimum.
I discovered more peculiar, even suspicious things about my November 13 test. On Psychemedics website the lab claims a 2-3 day turnaround on all tests. The test I took on November 13, 2013 (Friday the 13th) had a 13 day turnaround. What happened to the sample during those 13 days? Also, on the day of the test, November 13, 2013, Lena, in the COP medical center, reported to management that I failed to show up for the test.
Your company attempts to extort money. Seems like a good investigative reporter could bring this to light, and the courts!
You are a LIAR
Your company attempts to extort money. Seems like a good investigative reporter could bring this to light, and the courts!