| |
|
|
|
Current Standards For Driver License Renewal Evaluations
|
| Michael G. Brock, MA, LLP, LMSW |
| |
Michael G. Brock, MA, LLP, LMSW is a private practice Mental Health Professional in Wyandotte,
MI providing driver's license evaluations in the State of Michigan.
|
|
CURRENT STANDARDS FOR DRIVER LICENSE RENEWAL EVALUATIONS
|
| |
In 2004 the federal government, taking another step toward solidifying and centralizing its
power and usurping authority that once belonged to the states, succeeding in coercing Michigan
into lowering its level of intoxication to the .08 by threatening to withhold federal highway
funds (which president Bush is so fond of telling us, is really our money) unless we knuckled
under. It was, in the words of The Godfather, an offer we couldn't refuse.
Since then, the Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD), formerly the Driver License
Appeal Division (DLAD) has significantly elevated its requirements regarding driver license
evaluations, assuming even greater powers than those afforded to it in recent cases essentially
overturning the Circuit Courts authority to review DAAD decisions. In upholding DAAD
decisions, the Appellate Courts have admonished Circuit Court judges not to substitute their
decision from those of the DAAD's reviewing officers.
The New SUBSTANCE ABUSE EVALUATION (ALCOHOL AND DRUGS) AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
requests far more information than previously sought by evaluators handling these cases.
It also affords hearing officers the authority to reach conclusions about clients they have
not done sufficient evaluation to assess, such as mental health diagnosis and its impact on
sobriety. Moreover, they may not be qualified to offer an opinion on the subject if they had.
Since the opinions issued by these officers do not contain their credentials, or even their
first names, it is hard to know what they are qualified to determine. However, in addition
to the information traditionally asked for in substance abuse evaluations, the DAAD is currently
requiring:
Lifetime Conviction History:
Ask the client to disclose their complete lifetime history of convictions for operating while
intoxicated, impaired driving, drug crimes or any other non-driving convictions involving alcohol
or controlled substances. Include offenses and dates, and bodily alcohol content or drug type, if
known, at the time of offense.
This is a departure from the previous requirement of including only those convictions that showed
up on the clients driving record. It does provide more evidence regarding the extent of the client's
problem with substance abuse, and affords a better opportunity to find out if the person is substance
dependent. Dependency is a key issue because it is something a very small percentage of people
recovers from without help. Moreover, if your client is substance dependent and is not part of
an ongoing therapy or support group effort there is virtually no way of proving that he is
abstinent and, as you know, the burden of proof is on the appellant.
Lifetime Treatment History for Alcohol and/or Drug Abuse:
Specify dates, program, city and outcome of treatment. Please review and attach each treatment
plan and discharge report. Include treatment records for detoxification, Residential/Inpatient,
Intensive Outpatient, Outpatient (Individual and/or group), Education, and driver safety
intervention courses.
Essentially, this section asks the evaluator to do a complete review of the client's treatment
history, to assess their progress in that treatment, and to make that source material from the
client's counselor a part of the evaluation. Forwarding information from treatment sources, even
with a release from the client, has traditionally been considered a violation of confidentiality,
and his was before the HIPPA laws went into effect. There is a question in my mind as to whether
this is even legal, although it is ultimately the client who must send in the evaluation, so that
might make it so.
However, it also appears to mean that the person doing the substance abuse evaluation must, or
at least should, review all of the materials which will eventually be considered by the DAAD.
They do not say that the evaluator must consider the letters of confirmation by 3-6 persons vouching
for the clients sobriety, but this is also a good idea; first, because he needs six letters, not
three; and secondly, because the letter must be dated and signed, and must give the clients sobriety
date or it will be rejected as meaningless, even if it comes from a reliable source.
Most clients do not have all of this material with them at the time of the evaluation, but they
should if they are to have the best possible chance of regaining their driving privileges. If
any information is missing from the evaluation and it shows up at the time of the hearing, the
hearing officer will assume that the client lied to the evaluator or withheld information, and
that the evaluation is worthless.
Testing instruments:
There are several testing instruments available, with varying degrees of accuracy, and sometimes
different scoring systems for the same test. Like most substance abuse counselors, I prefer the
Michigan Alcohol Screening Test. It is a questionnaire of 24 questions, which gives a fairly
accurate picture of whether the person a) has a problem; b) accepts the problem; or, c) is in
denial of the problem. The questions available in the version of the test that I like to use
are as follows:
MICHIGAN ALCOHOL SCREENING TEST
| 1 |
Do you feel that you are a normal drinker? |
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 2 |
Have you ever awakened the morning after some drinking the night
before and found that you could not remember a part of that evening?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 3 |
Do you family or friends ever worry or complain about your drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
1 |
| 4 |
Can you always stop drinking without a struggle after one or two drinks?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 5 |
Do you ever feel bad about your drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
1 |
| 6 |
Do your friends or relatives think that you're a normal drinker?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 7 |
Are you always able to stop drinking when you want to?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 8 |
Have you ever attended a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
or any other group concerned about drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
5 |
| 9 |
Have you ever gotten into fights when drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
1 |
| 10 |
Has drinking ever created problems with you and your family
or friends?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 11 |
Have your friends or any family member ever gone to anyone for
help about your drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 12 |
Have you ever lost a job or been suspended from school
because of your drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 13 |
Have you ever gotten into trouble at school because of drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 14 |
Have you ever lost friends because of drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 15 |
Have you ever neglected your obligations, your family, your
work or your schoolwork for two or more days in a row because
you were drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 16 |
Do you drink before noon?
|
Yes |
No |
1 |
| 17 |
Have you ever been told you have liver trouble?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 18 |
Have you ever had delirium tremens (DTs), severe shaking,
heard voices, or seen thinks that were not there after
heavy drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
5 |
| 19 |
Have you ever gone to anyone for help about your drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
5 |
| 20 |
Have you ever been to a hospital emergency room because
of Your drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
5 |
| 21 |
Have you ever been a patient in a psychiatric hospital or
psychiatric unit in a general hospital where drinking was
part of the problem?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 22 |
Have you ever been to a mental health clinic, gone to a
doctor, social worker, counselor, or clergyman for help
with an emotional problem in which drinking played a part?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 23 |
Have you ever been arrested, other than drinking and driving,
for drinking or other substance related behavior (drunk and
disorderly, MIP, possession of MJ, etc.)?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| 24 |
Have you ever been arrested for drunk driving or driving
after drinking?
|
Yes |
No |
2 |
| Rating |
| |
| |
0-3 Points |
Low Risk |
|
| |
4-9 Points |
High risk for problem drinking |
|
| |
10 or more points |
Alcoholism |
|
| |
If your client has two or more DUIs or other arrests for behavior exhibited while or connected with
abuse of substances, he is probably an alcoholic/substance dependent, and is going to be viewed so
by the DAAD. If he answers no to questions 1, 4 and/or 8, he is essentially denying that his
drinking is out of control, so he is going to be viewed as being in denial by the evaluator and
the DAAD. These are, in my view, the most crucial questions on the test for detecting denial.
Questions 2-11 are generally associated with an emerging problem, 12-17 with an advancing problem,
and 18-23 with acute and/or chronic dependence.
When I began doing substance abuse counseling in 1974 it was not unusual to see people who had four
of five drunk driving arrests, an enlarged liver and pancreatitis who still had a driver's license.
I don't see that anymore. The earliest detection of a problem is usually by the courts these days,
and that makes it harder for substance dependent people to admit their problem. In AA language, they
get arrested long before they hit bottom.
By the time they develop advanced symptoms alcoholics/substance dependents have drifted out of the
mainstream culture and become marginalized. It is, therefore, crucial for clients to admit and
accept their problem before this happens, and many people are, in fact, able to admit and accept
their substance dependence on the basis of their encounters with the justice system. Tougher drunk
driving laws are actually helpful to the alcoholic because they force him to face his problem while
he still has some resources and motivation to recover before he has lost everything.
Lifetime Support Group History:
Specify all time periods of attendance and frequency, type of group, such as AA, Rational Recovery,
etc., and whether or not the person has a sponsor.
The client must have signed verification of attendance. Moreover, they are also asked to provide
3-6 letters (which, of course, means six) from reliable people who can vouch for their length of
sobriety. These are most likely to be long-term fellow AA members. However, if the letters do not
contain a date, specific data regarding where and when the person attends meetings, an exact date
for the commencement of sobriety, and the writer's signature, they will be discounted. This might
be obvious to a lawyer, but it is not to the average client or AA member; they need to be told.
The client also needs to know that he has to do more than show up. He is likely to be asked questions
by hearing officers (who know the answers) to see how much they actually know about the 12 steps.
They may ask the client to name the steps in order or out of order, and to articulate what they are
doing on each one or several of them. It is a good idea for the client to write out for his own
clarification and to be handed in if requested, each step, and exactly what action he is taking on
it. The book, The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions of AA gives a concise analysis of what is
intended by the author of the steps, Bill Wilson. Wilson used simple language; his explanations
are clear and easily comprehended. They comprise about 100 pages.
Please administer and submit a current urinalysis drug screen report, including urine sample
integrity variables.
In a discussion with supervisor Swayze of the DAAD, I was told that an evaluation without a drug
test would not automatically be rejected, but it is requested, and essential if the appellant has
a history of abuse of substances besides alcohol. I offer a six-panel screen that I do in my office,
but it does not test for integrity variable. I send those to Concentra labs for their ten-panel
screen, but I have incurred criticism of even these test results if they do not specify that they
have tested for integrity.
The lab has assured me on the phone that they do DOT tests and always test for integrity. I tell
them I still need it in writing or the DAAD won't believe it. The client needs to understand that
if the client is viewed as a questionable risk, they will look for a reason to deny him. In fairness,
they have the burden of whether or not to put the rest of our lives at risk, so they have to be tough.
The key is not to underestimate what is required. Like any appeal, the burden of proof is on the
person already convicted of the offense; and there is usually more than one.
Diagnostic Impression (DSM-IV):
Indicate all applicable alcohol, drug, and mental health diagnoses, supporting facts and remission
status.
While the DSM IV focuses on increased tolerance and withdrawal symptoms in determining dependence,
and while these symptoms may be in evidence, the most important symptom of this condition, as defined
by E. M. Jelenick in his landmark book, The Disease Concept of Alcoholism, and AA co-founder Bill
Wilson in the book Alcoholics Anonymous, and as indirectly by the standards set out by the DAAD for
restoring an applicants drivers license, is clearly loss of control of the amount of alcohol consumed
and significant impairment of performance and decision-making resulting from over-consumption. An
appellant must prove that he has control of his behavior regarding alcohol in that:
Section (ii) of Rule 13, (he or she) represents a low or minimal risk of repeating his or her past
abusive behaviors. Section (iii) of Rule 13, that he or she is a person who represents a low or
minimal risk of repeating the act of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by, or under the
influence of alcohol or controlled substances or a combination of alcohol and a controlled
substance.
The DAAD also requires a person with loss of control as indicated by three of these five: 1) 2x the
legal blood alcohol limit, 2) three or more convictions for DUI, 3) history of relapse, 4) diagnosis
of substance dependence, and, 5) prior revocation or denial of license because of substance related
offenses, to substantiate that they have maintained at least a year of complete abstinence before his
or her driver license can be restored.
While mental health diagnosis does have an affect on sobriety, most substance abuse counselors are
not qualified to assess such a diagnosis or the impact it is having or is likely to have on the
client's recovery. It is probable that the hearing officer is not either, and it is certain that
he will not do the mental health evaluation necessary to reach valid conclusions regarding an
existing condition or its likely effect, but they will draw these conclusions anyway. It is
important, therefore, to anticipate this probability and address these issues in the evaluation
if one is qualified to do so. It would be unwise to have someone do the evaluation who cannot
address these issues if the client has a serious mental health diagnosis, such as bi-polar
disorder.
Client Prognosis:
(Probability for abstinence or disuse and reasons for this opinion. Please indicate last date of
use for alcohol and controlled substances, including illicit drugs, narcotic/addictive prescription
medications and NA beer.)
Most of the people I see for these evaluations are substance dependent, and are therefore required
to have at least a year of abstinence (the DAAD does not like the word recovery) from substance
use to be considered for reinstatement. They want to see the diagnosis, substance dependency
(alcohol dependence 303.9) in full, sustained remission. This diagnosis used to have a code
in the DSM, but no longer does. The old code for remission, 303.3, should not be used.
It may be unwise for newly sober people to drink NA beer, but this seems a little extreme to me.
Prescription medication, if addictive, can be a much more serious problem, and there are many
alcoholics who will seek a substitute such as marijuana rather that committing to recovery.
They are both likely to abuse these drugs/prescriptions and to relapse into active drinking,
at which time they are likely to abuse both alcohol and the illicit/prescription drug, a very
dangerous situation.
Prognosis is determined in large part by propensity to relapse, and that is determined, at least
in part, by the client's history of relapse. A history of relapse is asked for below, but should
be addressed under this section. Some clients express the attitude that if they have had long-term
sobriety and then relapsed, they should be viewed as a good risk, but my experience is the opposite.
If the client was sober five years, then relapsed and picked up another DUI, how can they insure
that it won't happen again, and that this time they won't kill someone? It's a valid question.
So is the question regarding the date of last usage; anyone active in a support group will be able
to easily supply that date.
Continuum of Care Recommendations
[Including professional treatment, educational courses and community support groups (i.e., AA,
Rational Recovery, etc.) If none, state reasons.]
Recovery from addiction is always a long-term process, and while many recovered alcoholics/addicts
drift away from meetings after a few years and stay sober, they must have adequate supports in
place or they will inevitably drift back to active substance abuse. Moreover, involvement in
a support group is the only tangible evidence one can present that they are actively working
on their addiction. Fundamentalist religious affiliation is not a substitute and, in my experience,
often is a hindrance to sobriety efforts because of the teaching that one can be permanently
delivered.
Lifetime Relapse History
(Lifetime history of periods of abstinence followed by a return to use of alcohol, controlled substances
and/or NA beer.)
It is likely the client will be denied if he has not been sober this time longer than he was before
his last relapse.
Analysis & Other Observations/Factors
(Please consider clients current living and work environments, lifestyle, and use of narcotic/addictive
prescription medications and indicate whether any of these factors affect the overall prognosis
indicated above.)
AA advises its members to stay away from wet places and wet faces. It is unlikely that any addict
who does not change his friends, work, social activities and sometimes even family members if they
interfere with his goal of permanent sobriety will remain abstinent. This may sound extreme, but
Henrik Ibsen wrote a very insightful play about a woman who encourages a recovered alcoholic to
drink because it suits her romantic vision of the free-spirited artist with vine leaves in his hair,
with tragic consequences.
In Hedda Gabler, after she urges the recovering alcoholic Lovborg to attend an all-night drinking party
with her husband, Hedda uses the opportunity to destroy the only copy of a brilliant new manuscript
Lovborg has penned. When Lovborg returns from the party in despair over his evening of debauchery and
the loss of his manuscript, Hedda encourages him to commit suicide with one of her father's pistols,
then follows him into the hereafter. Just has there are many people who cannot accept their own addiction
and the need for abstinence, there are also many who, for whatever reason, cannot accept the need of a
friend or loved one to remain substance free. Such relationships are often a catalyst to relapse.
The alcoholic/addict who fails to recognize this is setting himself up for failure.
The importance of all of this is that the process of regaining ones driving privileges is considerably
more difficult than it has ever been, and this difficulty is being spelled out in the newest versions of
the outline provided for substance abuse evaluations by the DAAD. It is the job of the treatment professional
and the attorney to prepare the client for this new reality.
|
|
|
|
To learn more about the process, you can read these published articles by Michael Brock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Michael G. Brock, MA, LLP, LMSW
today at 313-802-0863, or browse the website for more information
Michael’s services.
|
| |
|
|
