Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note D – Litigation On December 16, 2010, we filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Columbia County against Martin R. Gould (“Gould”), Jacqueline Gale (“Gale”), Advanced Diagnosticum Products, Inc. (“ADPI”) and Biosure, Inc. (“Biosure”), together the “Defendants”. The complaint alleges that Gould, our former Chief Science Officer and Executive Vice President of Technology, and Gale, our former Vice President of Manufacturing and Development, were performing illegal, competitive, employment-related services for ADPI and Biosure during their employment with the Company, were using Company resources to perform such services, and were doing so in their capacity as employees and/or officers of ADPI and Biosure. Because the Defendants continue to engage in illegal activity, in addition to the compensatory and punitive damages noted below, the complaint also seeks an injunction restraining the Defendants from engaging in further wrongdoing. The Defendants exercised their right to move the action to federal court, and proceedings are now pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the Complaint, we assert claims of breach of duty of loyalty, breach of contract, violation of fiduciary duty and unfair competition and conversion specifically against Gould, and claims of breach of duty, violation of fiduciary duty and unfair competition and conversion specifically against Gale. In addition to these claims, we assert claims of conversion, tortious interference with contract, interference with prospective advantage and common law misappropriation of trade secret information against all Defendants. We are seeking judgment on nine (9) causes of action for compensatory damages against Defendants in such amount as may be established at trial, together with punitive damages in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each cause of action in the Complaint (totaling $9,000,000). On March 28, 2011, the Defendants filed an Answer to our Complaint and Defendant Gould filed a counter-claim against the Company in the amount of $150,000 alleging breach of contract related to an employment agreement between Gould and the Company. We filed a reply to Gould’s counterclaim on April 13, 2011. Our reply asserted that the Company did not breach the prior employment agreement in place with Gould, that the Company provided the required written notice of non-renewal of Gould’s employment agreement, and that Gould’s employment agreement expired on May 31, 2010; at which time Gould became an at-will employee of the Company. Gould was subsequently terminated for cause on July 28, 2010. A conference was held with the court on June 16, 2011, at which issues in dispute were discussed and a discovery schedule was set. As of the date of this report, factual discovery is completed and all depositions have been conducted. As previously disclosed, we received a warning letter from the FDA in July 2009 that alleges we re marketing our point of collection oral fluid drug test, OralStat, in workplace settings without marketing clearance or approval. A warning letter is considered by FDA to be informal and advisory. While a warning letter communicates FDA’s position on a matter it does not commit the FDA to taking enforcement action. We communicated to the FDA our belief (based on legal opinion) that marketing clearance was not required in non-clinical markets. The FDA continued to disagree with our interpretation of FDA regulations related to medical devices, and the FDA continued to assert jurisdiction of drug testing performed in the workplace. We also advised FDA that we were willing to obtain marketing clearance but that specific technical and scientific issues existed when attempting to utilize FDA’s draft guidance for our OralStat (because the draft guidance was written for urine drug tests). Nevertheless, we were unable to reach a consensus with the FDA on neither the jurisdiction issue nor the technical issues. On July 10, 2012, we announced in a press release and a Current Report on Form 8-K that we entered into a Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction (the “Consent Decree”) with FDA. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, we will be allowed to continue to market our OralStat drug test in the workplace market while we take action to obtain a 510(k) marketing clearance. More specifically, FDA will provide us with its most recent guidance on the clinical and analytical studies that need to be conducted to gather data in support of a 510(k) submission for OralStat. We will then have a total of 396 days to discuss protocols with FDA, complete our analytical and clinical studies and submit a substantially complete 510(k). We have agreed to withdraw the OralStat product from the workplace market if any of the following events occur: 1) we do not submit a substantially complete 510(k) within this specified time period, 2) we fail to submit additional information within time frames specified by FDA, 3) we withdraw our submission, or 4) our 510(k) submission results in FDA’s determination that the product is not substantially equivalent. On August 3, 2012 the Consent decree was approved and entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and on August 3, 2012, we received guidance from FDA. We are currently taking actions that will enable us to submit a 510(k) marketing application to FDA within the time frame specified under the Consent Decree. In addition to the previous disclosures, from time to time, we are named in legal proceedings in connection with matters that arose during the normal course of business. While the ultimate result of any such litigation cannot be predicted, if we are unsuccessful in defending any such litigation, the resulting financial losses could have an adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company. We are aware of no significant litigation loss contingencies for which management believes it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

Note D – Litigation

On December 16, 2010, we filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Columbia County against Martin R. Gould (“Gould”), Jacqueline Gale (“Gale”), Advanced Diagnosticum Products, Inc. (“ADPI”) and Biosure, Inc. (“Biosure”), together the “Defendants”. The complaint alleges that Gould, our former Chief Science Officer and Executive Vice President of Technology, and Gale, our former Vice President of Manufacturing and Development, were performing illegal, competitive, employment-related services for ADPI and Biosure during their employment with the Company, were using Company resources to perform such services, and were doing so in their capacity as employees and/or officers of ADPI and Biosure. Because the Defendants continue to engage in illegal activity, in addition to the compensatory and punitive damages noted below, the complaint also seeks an injunction restraining the Defendants from engaging in further wrongdoing. The Defendants exercised their right to move the action to federal court, and proceedings are now pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In the Complaint, we assert claims of breach of duty of loyalty, breach of contract, violation of fiduciary duty and unfair competition and conversion specifically against Gould, and claims of breach of duty, violation of fiduciary duty and unfair competition and conversion specifically against Gale. In addition to these claims, we assert claims of conversion, tortious interference with contract, interference with prospective advantage and common law misappropriation of trade secret information against all Defendants. We are seeking judgment on nine (9) causes of action for compensatory damages against Defendants in such amount as may be established at trial, together with punitive damages in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each cause of action in the Complaint (totaling $9,000,000).

On March 28, 2011, the Defendants filed an Answer to our Complaint and Defendant Gould filed a counter-claim against the Company in the amount of $150,000 alleging breach of contract related to an employment agreement between Gould and the Company. We filed a reply to Gould’s counterclaim on April 13, 2011. Our reply asserted that the Company did not breach the prior employment agreement in place with Gould, that the Company provided the required written notice of non-renewal of Gould’s employment agreement, and that Gould’s employment agreement expired on May 31, 2010; at which time Gould became an at-will employee of the Company. Gould was subsequently terminated for cause on July 28, 2010. A conference was held with the court on June 16, 2011, at which issues in dispute were discussed and a discovery schedule was set. As of the date of this report, factual discovery is completed and all depositions have been conducted.

As previously disclosed, we received a warning letter from the FDA in July 2009 that alleges we re marketing our point of collection oral fluid drug test, OralStat, in workplace settings without marketing clearance or approval. A warning letter is considered by FDA to be informal and advisory. While a warning letter communicates FDA’s position on a matter it does not commit the FDA to taking enforcement action. We communicated to the FDA our belief (based on legal opinion) that marketing clearance was not required in non-clinical markets. The FDA continued to disagree with our interpretation of FDA regulations related to medical devices, and the FDA continued to assert jurisdiction of drug testing performed in the workplace. We also advised FDA that we were willing to obtain marketing clearance but that specific technical and scientific issues existed when attempting to utilize FDA’s draft guidance for our OralStat (because the draft guidance was written for urine drug tests). Nevertheless, we were unable to reach a consensus with the FDA on neither the jurisdiction issue nor the technical issues.

On July 10, 2012, we announced in a press release and a Current Report on Form 8-K that we entered into a Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction (the “Consent Decree”) with FDA. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, we will be allowed to continue to market our OralStat drug test in the workplace market while we take action to obtain a 510(k) marketing clearance. More specifically, FDA will provide us with its most recent guidance on the clinical and analytical studies that need to be conducted to gather data in support of a 510(k) submission for OralStat. We will then have a total of 396 days to discuss protocols with FDA, complete our analytical and clinical studies and submit a substantially complete 510(k). We have agreed to withdraw the OralStat product from the workplace market if any of the following events occur: 1) we do not submit a substantially complete 510(k) within this specified time period, 2) we fail to submit additional information within time frames specified by FDA, 3) we withdraw our submission, or 4) our 510(k) submission results in FDA’s determination that the product is not substantially equivalent. On August 3, 2012 the Consent decree was approved and entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and on August 3, 2012, we received guidance from FDA. We are currently taking actions that will enable us to submit a 510(k) marketing application to FDA within the time frame specified under the Consent Decree.

In addition to the previous disclosures, from time to time, we are named in legal proceedings in connection with matters that arose during the normal course of business. While the ultimate result of any such litigation cannot be predicted, if we are unsuccessful in defending any such litigation, the resulting financial losses could have an adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company. We are aware of no significant litigation loss contingencies for which management believes it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.