Litigation/Legal Matters	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation/Legal Matters	ABMC v. Todd Bailey The Company has ongoing litigation in the Northern District of New York against Premier Biotech Inc., and its principal, Todd Bailey (“Bailey”) (together the “Defendants”) that was filed in February 2017. Bailey formerly served as the Company’s Vice President of Sales and Marketing and as a sales consultant until December 23, 2016. The complaint seeks damages related to any profits and revenues that results from action taken by the Defendants related to Company customers. In early 2017, the Company became aware of actions taken by the Defendants, including but not limited to, action taken specifically related to a Company contract with a state agency (held by the Company in excess of 10 years). The Company believes that the Defendants actions related to this customer and a RFP that was issued by the state agency resulted in the loss of the contract award to the Company and the award of the contract to Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc. (a then vendor of the Company) and Premier Biotech, Inc. in July 2017. This contract historically accounted for 10-15% of the Company’s annual revenue. The Company did protest the award of the contract to Peckham and Premier Biotech, and the state agency advised the Company on July 26, 2017 that they denied the Company’s protest of the award. The Company continued to hold a contract with the agency through September 30, 2017. After the award of the contract, the Company amended its complaint against the Defendants to show actual damages caused by the Defendants and to show proprietary and confidential information (belonging to the Company) used by the Defendants in their response to the RFP. This confidential information belonging to the Company enabled the Defendants to comply with specifications of the RFP and undercut the Company’s pricing. The Defendants filed a response to the court opposing the Company’s supplemental motion and the Company filed reply papers to the Defendants response on November 2, 2017. In January 2018, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss (that was filed by the Defendants in 2017). The court found that there was jurisdiction over the Defendants. The court did not rule on the other motions before them. In February 2018, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration and for leave to serve a supplemental/amended complaint. The new filing addressed (among other things) the Company’s intent to further supplement its complaint based on additional (subsequent) damage alleged by the Company on the part of the Defendants. In September 2018, the court ruled on the motions filed in February 2018. The court granted in part and denied in part our motions for reconsideration. More specifically, our motions supplementing claims of the Bailey’s breach of contract and damages related to the same, and Bailey’s misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets were granted. The Company’s motions related to unjust enrichment and tortious interference were not granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was once again denied. The Company filed its supplemental motions as required on October 12, 2018. On November 1, 2018, the Defendants filed their response to our supplemental motions. In January 2019, an initial conference was held to discuss the case management plan and exchange mandatory disclosures. On January 31, 2019, the court referred the case for participation in the Mandatory Mediation Program. In January 2019, Bailey’s complaint previously filed in Minnesota was transferred as a counter-claim in the Company’s complaint against Bailey. Bailey is seeking deferred commissions of $164,000 he alleges are owed to him by the Company. These amounts were originally deferred under a deferred compensation program initiated in 2013; a program in which Bailey was one of the participants. The Company has responded to the Bailey counterclaim and believes these amounts are not due to Bailey given the actions indicated in the Company’s litigation. On April 5, 2019, a mediation conference was held. As of the date of this report, there is no discernible outcome of the medication conference. The deadline for completion of mediation is May 31, 2019. Given the stage of the litigation, management is not yet able to opine on the outcome of its complaint or the counterclaim.

Litigation/Legal Matters

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

ABMC v. Todd Bailey

The Company has ongoing litigation in the Northern District of New York against Premier Biotech Inc., and its principal, Todd Bailey (“Bailey”) (together the “Defendants”) that was filed in February 2017. Bailey formerly served as the Company’s Vice President of Sales and Marketing and as a sales consultant until December 23, 2016. The complaint seeks damages related to any profits and revenues that results from action taken by the Defendants related to Company customers.

In early 2017, the Company became aware of actions taken by the Defendants, including but not limited to, action taken specifically related to a Company contract with a state agency (held by the Company in excess of 10 years). The Company believes that the Defendants actions related to this customer and a RFP that was issued by the state agency resulted in the loss of the contract award to the Company and the award of the contract to Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc. (a then vendor of the Company) and Premier Biotech, Inc. in July 2017. This contract historically accounted for 10-15% of the Company’s annual revenue. The Company did protest the award of the contract to Peckham and Premier Biotech, and the state agency advised the Company on July 26, 2017 that they denied the Company’s protest of the award. The Company continued to hold a contract with the agency through September 30, 2017.

After the award of the contract, the Company amended its complaint against the Defendants to show actual damages caused by the Defendants and to show proprietary and confidential information (belonging to the Company) used by the Defendants in their response to the RFP. This confidential information belonging to the Company enabled the Defendants to comply with specifications of the RFP and undercut the Company’s pricing. The Defendants filed a response to the court opposing the Company’s supplemental motion and the Company filed reply papers to the Defendants response on November 2, 2017.

In January 2018, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss (that was filed by the Defendants in 2017). The court found that there was jurisdiction over the Defendants. The court did not rule on the other motions before them. In February 2018, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration and for leave to serve a supplemental/amended complaint. The new filing addressed (among other things) the Company’s intent to further supplement its complaint based on additional (subsequent) damage alleged by the Company on the part of the Defendants. In September 2018, the court ruled on the motions filed in February 2018. The court granted in part and denied in part our motions for reconsideration. More specifically, our motions supplementing claims of the Bailey’s breach of contract and damages related to the same, and Bailey’s misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets were granted. The Company’s motions related to unjust enrichment and tortious interference were not granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was once again denied. The Company filed its supplemental motions as required on October 12, 2018. On November 1, 2018, the Defendants filed their response to our supplemental motions. In January 2019, an initial conference was held to discuss the case management plan and exchange mandatory disclosures. On January 31, 2019, the court referred the case for participation in the Mandatory Mediation Program.

In January 2019, Bailey’s complaint previously filed in Minnesota was transferred as a counter-claim in the Company’s complaint against Bailey. Bailey is seeking deferred commissions of $164,000 he alleges are owed to him by the Company. These amounts were originally deferred under a deferred compensation program initiated in 2013; a program in which Bailey was one of the participants. The Company has responded to the Bailey counterclaim and believes these amounts are not due to Bailey given the actions indicated in the Company’s litigation.

On April 5, 2019, a mediation conference was held. As of the date of this report, there is no discernible outcome of the medication conference. The deadline for completion of mediation is May 31, 2019. Given the stage of the litigation, management is not yet able to opine on the outcome of its complaint or the counterclaim.