Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Marijuana in worker's system bars compensability for hand injury

In Arkansas, even the slight presence of illegal drugs in a worker's system is sufficient to raise the rebuttable presumption that an injury was substantially occasioned by the use of drugs.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Townley v. Georgia Pacific Corp., No. CA 11-797 (Ark. Ct. App. 01/11/12).

Ruling: The Arkansas Court of Appeals held that a worker's hand injury was not compensable.

What it means: In Arkansas, even the slight presence of illegal drugs in a worker's system is sufficient to raise the rebuttable presumption that an injury was substantially occasioned by the use of drugs.

Summary: A worker operated a machine that embossed and perforated toilet paper. After a brief safety meeting about the prevention of hand injuries, the worker attempted to get paper off the machine. He hit a button on his machine and his hand became caught. He sustained a fracture with two broken fingers. His employer administered a drug test, which revealed that the worker had marijuana in his system. The Arkansas Court of Appeals held that the worker was not entitled to benefits.

The worker admitted that he smoked marijuana two days before the accident. The supervisor said that at the safety meeting, he couldn't tell whether the worker was impaired. The human resources manager said that after the injury, the worker appeared sleepy and disoriented, and he had incoherent speech.

The worker argued that his injury was caused by "defective equipment" and the absence of safety features on the machine. The worker's supervisor said that employees were expected to keep their hands away from moving parts on the machine. The safety leader also said that there was no reason for the worker to put his hand in the machine. The court rejected the worker's argument.

The worker also asserted that his drug test should have been reported as negative because the amount of marijuana in his system was below the cutoff levels used by the Department of Transportation. The court disagreed, stating that the mere presence of an illegal drug in a worker's system is enough to trigger the rebuttable presumption that an injury was substantially occasioned by the use of drugs. The court noted that the worker did not bring witnesses to testify that he was not impaired immediately before the accident occurred.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

February 16, 2012

Copyright 2012© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.