Injured worker used pot, but was he high?
November 10, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Alcohol/drugs, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Workers' comp
PDF An employee was injured on the job and received workers’ comp. However, his employer appealed the decision because urine tests showed he’d been using an illegal drug before the incident.
The facts:
Michael Adkins slipped on a patch of ice in a freezer at work. He applied for workers’ comp and received payments.
His employer contested the award. Adkins admitted smoking pot three days before the incident.
At trial, a doctor testified that the drug test report showed Adkins’ physical or mental faculties were altered at the time of the accident.
Texas state law says if an employee is under the influence at the time of a workplace accident, the company doesn’t have to pay comp.
However, Adkins tried to say he wasn’t high at the time of the accident and presented two co-workers as witnesses, who said he didn’t appear impaired that day at work.
State law doesn’t specify a level of illegal drug use at which a person is considered under the influence. It doesn’t work the same as blood-alcohol level after a car crash.
Who won the case?
Answer: The company won. It didn’t have to pay Adkins’ workers’ comp because he was under the influence of a controlled substance when he sustained the injuries.
The court put more weight on the doctor’s testimony than that of Adkins’ co-workers.
Analysis: Demand drug tests after injuries
While no two states’ workers’ comp laws are exactly the same, many withhold payments when an employee is injured while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
That’s why it’s crucial to have employees drug-tested after workplace injuries. The results won’t just affect comp. They’ll also affect the decision on the employee’s future at your company.
(Adkins v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co.) To see court documents related to this case, click here.
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Tags: drug test, illegal drug, Workers' comp
Loading ...
November 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
It seems that the decision was based more on the bias against the use of “illegal” drugs rather than impairment by the employee contributing to the injury.
I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the test showed medications that were prescribed by a doctor. I don’t know what level this individual had in his system, but it does appear that he did not outwardly appear to be “under the influence.” I know that I have seen employees come to work overly tired or on prescription medications where there were obvious impairments. If these employees become injured while on the job, they would be covered by Workers Compensation.
Many medications have warnings concerning operating machinery or making you drowsy. I know that many employees don’t inform their supervisors (even though required by policy) when they are taking such medication. Currently the testing process screens out these cases by the MRO so the employer never knows.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I’m all for drug testing in the workplace, but fairness should come into play as well. Testing positive for THC is not the same as being high. Denying WC because the guy smoked pot 3 days earlier is simply not fair.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am
This is an area that our company does not have any flexibility. When you are hired into the company, it is very well explained that there is a strick drug use policy. Every employee is told about this and is required to sign off on this. I know you can’t tell an employee what he can and can’t do outside of the workplace but I can inforce that he will not be using illegal drugs if he wants to continue to work for the company. I can’t afford to have someone hurt because of the actions of someone else who uses.
Between insurance companies and lawsuits for negligence, it has to be enforced.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:17 am
If there is a trace of alcohol in the persons system, no matter how small, is it contributory? Should a pilot fly with a trace of THC in his system? As a manager, should I decide an employee’s fate or company policy, with a trace of something in my blood stream? Clear standards under the various laws and jurisdictions do not spell out the answers, but I’m willing to bet that a trace of something is still an influence, and that leaves us with a desision based on responsibility.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I would much rather be working next to someone who had smoked pot the night before than to work next to a worker who had drank a bunch of alcohol the night before and was hungover. The lingering affects of alcohol are much worse than that of marijuana.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
After reading my post again, I am afraid I may have given the impression that I was not in favor of denying the worker workers compensation. I am not in favor of drug use that can affect a person on the job. I know many people that tell me “marijuana is safe, it doesn’t do anything.” If that is the case, that it “doesn’t do anything, then why do they do it?
My concern is that there are other behaviors, being overly tired, taking prescription medications, not eating after taking insulin, etc. that can lead to a lack of awarenss and coordination and workplace injury.
We seem to demonize workers who use illegal drugs and drink alcohol. We don’t seem to give equal weight to similar unsafe behaviors in the courts or on the job.
When sending an employee for a urinalysis and the Medical Review Officer becomes aware of a the presence of a drug, illegal or legal, the doctor will check for any medical reason for the substance, and if there is, then the MRO reports none detected. I would think that a process should be developed that has the MRO report any finding that may have contributed to an injury or accident.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
It’s the metabolites that are tested, not the actual active ingredient. It just happens that the metabolites of THC hang around for a long time because they’re fat soluble. A guy on meth can show no trace of the drug after 3 days, but the guy that smoked pot gets nailed for it.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Many occupations carry inherent potential hazards and as such; training, engineering, and PPE items are used to mitigate the hazards so that a task can be completed safely. Even with the safe work practices, designed tools/equipment, and PPE; there are those that ignore some of the rules and injuries take place. Irresponsible Behavior of both the craft eployee and first line supervisor contribute to the accident. An accident doesn’t happen every time the rules are ignored, but greater potential for an incident is likely. Taking unnecessary risks and exposing oneself or others to harm is acting in an irresponsible way. With all that said, adding to the mix an employee that may be impaired by being under the influence of an illegal drug is adding more irresponsibility. We all feel badly when someone gets hurt and/or looses their job. We would feel even worse if they died or caused others to die just because they wanted to use illegal or legal drugs for a recreational high.
Why do people that know the policies, rules, and standards of an employer; have promised to abide by those rules, policies, and standards as a condition of their employment become surprised when action is taken when they defy them? I could lose my job if I use drugs, but I choose to use them anyway. Is the employee placing a greater value on the use of the drug by doing so? If not, then why does he/she do it?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:42 am
I am for protecting employees, including myself. If an employee is using illegal drugs I do not want to be around that person whether they used today, over the weekend or a week ago. They are a hazard to themselves and others. If someone is using illegal drugs they do not have good judgement in the first place.
Supervisors and fellow employees should be alert for other “impared” behaviors, including being overly tired, being sick or hungover, and using perscription drugs. Then they should take reasonable action to protect other workers from those people.
By the way, I am for random testing also.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I don’t want to be around people who cheat on their spouses. I also don’t like to be around people who lie on their taxes, accept lavish gifts in return for political favors or who are otherwise immoral. Obviously these sorts of people do not have good judgement in the first place. Too bad we can’t randomly test for these behaviors also - huh?
November 24th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Thanks, Mike Deal.
I really think that the issue here is safety. Safety is not the sole responsibility of the supervisor or the company. If everyone on the job doesn’t make safety a priority, then the workplace becomes an “accident waiting to happen.” We know that many worksite accidents are related to drinking and illegal drugs, because of post accident testing and reporting. We don’t know how many are due to other reasons, because we don’t test or the MRO doesn’t report (in the instance of a prescribed drug).
I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of workplace accidents are not related to illegal drugs or alcohol. I wonder how many are due to being tired, doped up on prescription meds, or being sick.
If a person you work with is exhibiting behaviors that could be a sign of an impairment (overly tired, on medications, drunk, or high) the supervisor should be notified. The supervisor should confront these behaviors and make a determination if the employee is “fit” to work safely. This meeting should be documented. If the behavior continues, then progressive discipline should be employed and possibly a “fitness for duty” examination.
I find it sad, that we tend to excuse or tolerate co-workers who are impaired on the job. We all know co-workers who come to the job overly tired or sick that we do or say nothing about. However, when we can tie it to something we have a personal bias about like drinking or illegal drugs, then we get all “self righteous.”
November 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I whole heartly agree with no drugs at work, but I also believe that safety starts with the employer. Why was there an ice patch on the floor in the freezer? Anyone, whether high or not could have been injured. Was the company held liable for their negligence or did they simply look for a way to reduce their claims by putting the fault on the employee? Maybe there is more to the story then being put forth in this example, but as a juror I would almost have to side with the injured employee. Sorry.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
For me, the key issue is the fact that smoking pot is illegal, no matter what the amount. If an employee wants to participate in a behavior that is illegal, then he/she should surely pay the price for doing so. If someone ran over your child and you found out that they had THC in their system, wouldn’t you consider that an aggravating circumstance as to whether or not they served 5 years or fifty years in jail? The same goes for anyone abusing prescription drugs or performing tasks while under the influence of any substance that makes it unsafe to perform those tasks. If you act while while it is unsafe for you to do so, then you should pay. There is a legal limit for alcohol, but not for pot…because pot is an illegal substance. In actuality, I think alcohol should be illegal as well so please don’t think I am picking on those who smoke pot.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
My question is he smoked pot 3 days before the accident, was he on vacation or over the weekend? If he was working he put his co-workers and himself in danger for 3 days before this accident. I can assume this was not a first time user. I agree with the jury. Prescribe drugs are not illegal and the superviser should be aware if an employee is impaired. The employer need to clean up the ice and teach his employees that freezer and ice goes together.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
As a Texas employer, I have seen this happen at least three times. We do post offer drug screening, but it doesn’t stop people from smoking pot after they get hired. Our employee handbook clearly defines “under the influence” as testing positive on a drug screening test. It amazes me that drugs are so much more important to people than their livelihoods.
December 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am
i have to smoke pot, so that i can endure the ridiculously simple logic employed here and elsewhere. there was a time in the u.s. when bad laws were stricken as new information came to light. we know that cigarettes and alcohol are the most dangerous drugs (legal or illegal), as they do the most physical damage and are the most addictive. pot is actually a beneficial drug, and if technology were made available the smoking hazards could be eliminated (as with nicotine). however, because this would cause potential damage to the cigarette, booze, and pill industries, there will be none of it.
although this has little to do with the specific issue, i am always alarmed by seemingly “intelligent” discussions that suggest the continued erosion of individual freedom in favor of efficiency and a smooth running machine. we didn’t have all of these regulations in place when we became the world’s manufacturing superpower. now that we are degrading into a bunch of distributors dispensing the world’s goods to our “consumers”, we are going to rule and regulate ourselves into oblivion as china, india, and the rest bury us. when your economy devolves into something that reembles a shopping mall, where economic growth is tied to how many suvs and dvd players we buy.
while we worry about some worker’s comp case as if it confirms that everyone is drunk, high, on pills, or careless at work.
if you want to help yourself or your kids, get started on some chinese lessons.
there is a free lunch. we are eating it now.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:35 am
To me the social prohibition on pot is analagous to the following story..
The Monkey Story
Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the monkeys with cold water.
After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, turn off the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.
Again, replace a third original monkey with a new one. The new one makes it to the stairs and is attacked as well. Two of the four monkeys that beat him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
After replacing the fourth and fifth original monkeys, all the monkeys that have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs.
Why not?
Because as far as they know that’s the way it’s always been around here.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Nice story and example of Skinner’s Behavior Modification. Of course, you assume that the banana is benign for this analogy. You claim that “no monkey ever again approaches the stairs”, however, with no stimulus, there will be diminishing returns on this effect, and eventually they will be eating bananas again and climbing stairs.
I suggest you take into consideration that the banana might be poison or that the stairs are a mortal hazard. As the monkeys try to partake, they die and are replaced by new monkeys. After a while you have a cage full of monkeys who are alive and well and the banana is safe. According to Darwin, the ones who will survive long term are those that do not like to eat bananas or climb stairs.
So I guess, we could “do nothing” and let those who smoke pot or partake in the risky “drug culture” become extinct. Unfortunately, when they do it and are affected on the job, they usually aren’t the only ones to get injured. They seem to always get others injured or killed, as well.
I think I like the hose and the cold water, better.
December 17th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Well said Mike!
January 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Jill,
Obviously you are one of the individuals that would have tested positive after 3 days. We may not have any control over what employees do outside of work. However, if employees are intentionally not following a drug free workplace policy then the results should not suprise or offend anyone.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:22 am
As always there are concerns as to why someone who used a drug three days earlier should be faulted for the accident that occurs today. Well let’s not forget that if you are detecting the drug then there is still some of the drug in the system. In that vein it would mean that the body is still being affected whether the “user” is aware of the effects or not. Also, the best way to determine if there is a connection is to perform a Due Diligence Review and determine if the circumstnces that are connected to the accident are proximately related to the impairing effects of the drug. In this case the impairig effects of the drug include, but are not limited to, an unknowing/uncaring attitude (not doing anything about the ice on the floor) and loss of balance. Not everyone who steps on ice falls down. Also there is the inability to react to an emergent or immediate change inenvironment. Assuming that the employee was aware of the company policy on drug use ten a conscious decision was made by the person (though not a very good one) to continue to use the drug even though the risk of getting caught on a Random test most likely existed [remember the unknowing/uncaring attitude?]. Sorry guys, I side with the company on this one!
February 10th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
As a safety veteran, I too, was involved in the investigation of a similar accident in Texas. Because we did not have the signed consent of the injured employee prior to the accident, we had to jump through all sorts of legal hoops in order to get the results from the hospital. I understand and respect privacy laws; however, I can’t help but think that the hospital’s point of view was one similart to,”If we release the results of the blood test, who will pay for the bills other than workers’ comp., the worker, yeah right?!”
So you don’t have to get sprayed with cold water while going for banana, or get beat-up by other monkeys to figure this one out……………………………………………………………………………..
Morale of the story: Have a good drug & alcohol policy with a signed consent to test and release result-information to employer’s representative prior to hiring prospective employees (in Texas anyways).
February 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Also remember that there are illegal drugs that affect persons after they can no longer be detected. So saying that if you can detect it means that it is affecting a person is in error because not all drugs show the same.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
If the discussion is about safety, then we need to get beyond illegal drug use and testing and focus on anything that impairs an employee’s ability to perform safely; alcohol, sleep, prescribed medications, illnesses, etc. The drug test is just one piece of evidence that an employee was impaired. Every accident investigation checks with witnesses to see what behaviors they say before, during and after.
If someone was stumbling and had slurred speech and you instant tested them for drugs and alcohol and they were negative, would you let them fly the plane you are about to fly on? Of course not. Although, I can see an employer making the argument after an accident, “Well, he tested negative for drugs and alcohol” so we HAD to let them work. If someone appears to be impaired on the job, pull them even if the tests come back negative. The basis for the decision? Their behavior. Document it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
To ChipT: The test for marajuna is not for the psycoactive constituant of the drug but the metabolites. Metabolites are not the chemical that gets you high. These metabolites are fat soluable so they are stored in the body much longer than water soluable drugs such as meth or coke. They are also testable for up to 28 days. So just because a person is tested positive for marajuna does not mean that he was impaired. If you smoked a couple of joints today you could test positive for up to 28 days this doesn’t mean you were stoned for 28 days. Please educate yourselfs before you make such statements.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
All those who are defending the right to use drugs legal or non legal and work amongst your co -workers without disclosing your empairment are missing the point. fred garvin . If the liberal every body owes me folks would take responsibility for themselves and there actions then employers would not have to create policy to protect them selves. An employee smokes dope and trips or falls so my employer should pay. That same employee kills some one and the employer should pay. As an employer why should I even have to train my employees and make them aware of the potential for problems if they use illegal drugs or legal drugs? Dah, show up ready to work and fit to do the job. You same folks want it to be illegal for the employer to ask about an employees personal life but you want the employer to be the responsible party when an employee hurts himself or kills someone. I have to ask myself,”why would anyone want to own a business that has employees.”?
April 29th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Most of this thread misses the entire point of the case. It was not the legal or illegal nature of the drug, it was not about his off duty use, it was pure and simply a weight of evidence decision. The trier of fact (judge or jury) felt the evidence available showed the EE *was* impaired during the event.
The appeals court was faced with a simple issue: Was the lower court (judge/jury) acting in a reasonable manner when it decided that one party’s testimony was more credible than the other?
One side had a doctor testifying that based on the medical/scientific evidence that the person would have been impaired. The other side had a person that said he had smoked dope 3 days earlier and two (non-medical) lay people say he looked fine.
The appeals court can only overturn the lower court if there is no scintilla of evidence to support the lower court’s finding. Sorry but an appeal court is always going to find it reasonable for someone to believe the medical testimony over two lay people.
You can argue about the length of time a metabolite will last in the fat tissue all you want. But a casual or first time user will most likely wash out in 2-3 days for a “average” amount. A heavy user might take much longer for the same amount because of half-life and buildup. It is reasonable for a doctor to be able to testify that given the statements of the individual, the amount of the metabolites measured and the time line involved that the person was not credible.
It is also reasonable to say that given this amount, this time line and the user’s own testimony about usage that the person was impaired. In fact, if the EE tried to hide more regular usage by saying he was only a casual user the doctor might actually be inclined to find the person was impaired. The amount in the system would have washed out of a casual user sooner so it must be more recent to have that amount present.
Right or wrong, at least for now, marijuana is illegal in TX and an employer can have a drug free workplace. If you want to continue to smoke dope then be my guest. Just don’t whine about the consequences. Moral posturing has never come without consequences…
April 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
To HR-n-Tx:
“Most of this thread misses the entire point of the case. It was not the legal or illegal nature of the drug, it was not about his off duty use, it was pure and simply a weight of evidence decision. ”
Actually, the discussion highlights the problem with the process you describe. Pay an “expert witness” and you will win in court seems to be the the bottom line.
You said, “One side had a doctor testifying that based on the medical/scientific evidence that the person would have been impaired.” Actually, the article does not say that, it says, “At trial, a doctor testified that the drug test report showed Adkins’ physical or mental faculties were altered at the time of the accident.” Which means he physically had the metabolytes in his system. There was no mention of “impairment.”
You say, “It was not the legal or illegal nature of the drug, it was not about his off duty use, it was pure and simply a weight of evidence decision.” And I agree to an extent, because there is no mention that he was prosecuted for illegal drug use or possession. The case was NOT supposed to be about illegal drug use, but what factors contributed to the employee’s injuries and whether the company’s Workers Compensation should be let off the hook if the employee’s behavior in violation of company policy likely caused or significantly caused the accident. There apparently was little said about the slippery conditions in the freezer and what measures were taken to keep employee’s safe. It was a referendum on drug use.
If an employee is “impaired” due to distractions, alcohol use (under the .08 limit), prescription medication, being overly tired, or illness and is involved in an accident on the job, Workers Compensation will cover it. However, if they have an illegal drug in their system which the state hasn’t bothered to set a level at which a person is considered impaired, the employer gets a free ride. The article goes on to say “State law doesn’t specify a level of illegal drug use at which a person is considered under the influence. It doesn’t work the same as blood-alcohol level after a car crash.”
The penalty for minor possession and use of marijuana in many states is a ticket and small fine. Here it is denial of medical treatment and rehabilitation.
Finally, this decision hurts EVERYONE in Texas because if Workers Compensation doesn’t pay, then where is the incentive for the company to look at the risks of that job and make improvements that will benefit all visitors and workers? This WAS NOT about risk or fault, it was about how to save a business money and SCARE drug users straight. It should be obvious to the most casual observer who benefits and who loses by this decision.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Accountability is an element required by all parties; the employee, the employer, the union, and fellow employees. The drug policy of any company is known by its employees and I believe most have been aquainted with someone that lost their job because of the consequences or have experienced first hand the symptoms of working with someone on the job and realized their judgement and behavior had a negitive impact on the job. That may be manifested in quality, safety, production, and the reputation of the company. All of which affect the possibility of future work, cost of doing business, and endangering the safety of the employee, his/her fellow workers and the public.
Drug use should not be tolerated on or off the job. How often have we as safety professionals read and heard the benefits of safety off the job. People who use drugs and are at risk at home can and do get injured and come to work before seeking medical attention. This, in my experience is rare, however it does happen. Even if an injury does not occur because of at risk or unsave behavior off the job, those habits end up being repeated on the job.
The fact is that businesses cannot afford to turn a blind eye to employees known to be users of drugs. Businesses spend millions of dollars on educating supervisors, drug testing of new employees, testing DOT regulated employees, random testing, and employee assistant programs to manage a drug free environment in the workplace.
The choice to use drugs is an individual one, however employers and other employees have a right to a safe and healthy work environment. The employee that chooses to use drugs must also bear the responsibility of the consequences of that choice. The questions then is; why do so many defend the employee that makes the choice to ignore the company policy and the law. If we do nothing or rationalize drug use, we have given our approval for such activity by the employee. We also make exceptions to the rules to the point that the exception becomes the rule. Chaos then becomes the rule of law.
Most companies have a drug policy that is known by their employees. The employee signs a statement of understanding and realizes the consequences of violating the policy. It should also be noted that many businesses have an employee assistance program for those that have a drug problen and help is available for them to receive treatment to overcome the use of drugs. This too costs the company and is paid from profits. Lets face it, drug use is a happiness killer. Families are torn apart, jobs are lost, dignity is lost to dependence on the drug, judgement is impaired, and everyone is a loser; the employee, other employees, the employer, the family, and society in general.
Knowing the eventual consequences of drug use, why would anyone want to use them?
May 1st, 2009 at 11:52 am
Mike -
We can discuss all day whether the TX’s drug laws, like the federal and most states, are rationale or not. This case was decided under the current laws in effect and stare decisis built upon hundreds of years of Anglo-Saxon law.
I disagree totally about your characterization that the doctor did not say he was impaired (my choice of semantics for “under the influence”): Having “physical or mental faculties altered” could be *deemed by a “reasonable” person to mean “under the influence”* and that is the only issue before the appeals court.
It is settled jurisprudence that an appeals court should not going to get into second guessing issues of who is more credible based solely on the written record. Only if there is no scintilla of evidence to support the outcome will they overturn it.
Could a reasonable person have arrived at that conclusion based on all the evidence? Had the trial judge (or a jury) rejected the testimony then the appeals court could have sided with the EE. The lesson get a medical doctor to say “there is no way this would have been a factor.”
While contributory negligence is a fundamental issue in tort laws it doesn’t apply in WC cases in TX. In TX workers comp is a no fault system but has exceptions carved out for employees who are under the influence because an ER should not be held liable for a drunk or stoned employee’s accidents. Likewise, an EE is given an exemption from the non-suit provisions when an ER acts with gross negligence because ER’s should not be encouraged to allow dangerous situations they *know about* continue.
The ice on the floor is simply not a factor because the no-fault terms say WC claims are paid regardless of who is at fault *unless* the employee was under the influence. The perception by the trial court that the employee was under the influence eliminates the claim - period. If the EE could have proven that this was a known issue and common that it likely would lead to issues s/he could have sued under that theory (as opposed to fighting solely over the claim.)
The plaintiff is not denied access to medical care or rehabilitation. It is merely who will pay for it worker’s comp insurance, personal insurance or the employee. If he cannot pay then let’s have a bigger discussion about the issues we face with health care delivery in the US.
Hell, what do you say let’s legalize marijuana and use the taxes to pay for health care reform???? In the interim if you smoke up don’t get hurt on the job.
BTW - Don’t be so down on businesses. Either 1) you are employed by one, 2) you own one, 3) your unemployment checks came from the taxes on paid, or 4) you are independently wealthy, which means someone made a crap load of money somewhere and it was probably a business. In short, we all need them.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
What makes a doctor qualified to determine impairment when there is no standard for impairment? Unless the doctor is a research scientist that studies this criteria, why would he be considered an expert on the matter and be asked to provide his/her opinion on the matter? Numerous injured employees, testing positive for pot, have received W.C. benefits, after going to court, because it could not be proven that they were impaired and that the pot contributed to the accident. Apparently no doctors could be found that were willing to testify that they were expert enough on the subject to ascertain the employee was impaired.
Why would anyone except the employee’s statement that he smoked 3 days ago? When cops stop drunk drivers and ask them how much they have had to drink, how many of the drivers say “only a few”? It is quite possible that the employee had smoked on his way to work.
BTW, slip and falls happen in freezers all of the time. It is a common problem with all restaurants. The rubber mats used for other slippery surfaces don’t work well in freezers.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Pot is the only subatance that you can be tested for and be positive for up to 30 days after use. It seems to me that this is discrimination. Just because you test positive for this drug does not mean that you are under the influence at that time. The effects of pot only last a couple of hours. This is the critical point. I would much rather work in a hazardous environment with someone that smoked pot last nite than someone that got blitzed out of their mind on liqour the nite before and came to work with a hangover. So tell me how liqour is safer than pot!!! Tell me how this law makes any sense!! I believe this is a bunch of propaganda perpetuated by the government enacted by alarmists. LEAGLIZE IT TAX IT AND DROP IT. THAT DOG DON’T HUNT!!!!!
January 19th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Simply, they are breaking the law when they use it, they are breaking their companies policies as well which affects their ability to be paid, and also to receive unemployment and workers comp. There has to be a black and white interpretation of the law even if it doesn’t seem fair. Otherwise, we will be left with subjective decision makers deciding what degree of impaired is. I can’t tell you what a person after three days nor can a drug test tell you whether the person was using the morning of the incident. I believe workers comp should continue to look at whether the employee would remain employed. We have to protect a person on workers comp’s job. While otherwise, they would be terminated for violating the DFWP. People are generally aware of their companies stance on DFWP enforcement. It shows you how impaired people become while using that they are willing to jeopardize their livelihood by continuing to do so. I had an employee leave my office, after a confession, (and positive DT), go straight to the lab and have another test done. It confirmed our test. He then hired an attorney and had the results sent to us. Tell me that drugs do not affect a persons ability to make good judgement calls!
February 16th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Question: What about the states where marijuna is legal for medical use.. This in its self brings a new light to the subject ,, Colorado is one of these states ,, How are we to deal with issue.????
I am all for safety in the work place and Illegle drug dont belong at the work place,,
February 16th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Mike S.: For more information on medical marijuana and workplace safety, read this article: http://www.safetynewsalert.com/worker-argues-medical-pot-should-exempt-him-from-discipline/
February 16th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Thanks Fred .Its going to be a long process