Commission smokes employer in $820,000 "temporary" award

Joseph Franklin v AB Electrical Inc.
Inj. 15-094035
Sept. 9, 2017

Claimant alleges catastrophic injuries from a fall from an 8 foot scaffold in 2015 and the employer denied benefits on the basis of a positive marijuana test.  The Commission reversed the denial and awarded in a temporary award more than $820,000 in past medical benefits and an order to provide weekly benefits and ongoing medical care.

Claimant is 34-years old and has no memory of the accident.

A witness testified he saw claimant take two hits off a pipe in the morning of the accident.  He was injured in the afternoon.  Claimant tested positive for THC, a metabolite for marijuana at 1:27 a.m.  A toxicologist testified claimant would have been impaired in his perception and reaction time and such impairments would have affected his ability to work safely on scaffolding, even if such impairments were not obvious to a co-worker.  He concluded the effects could have lasted 8 hours, and claimant's accident occurred as a proximate cause of smoking marijuana on the job in violation of the employer's policy.

Claimant he smoked at work, but did not smoke marijuana at work but smoked it away from work "on occasions."  He introduces contested evidence that the witness statement about claimant smoking is not credible, based on testimony from his sister that the witness said he was "forced" to support the story.

The ALJ found the use supported both by the witness testimony and expert opinion making inferences about whether the positive drug test showed prohibited drug use in conjunction with and as a cause of the accident.

The commission noted the critical nature of the injury:   “a subdural hematoma with features of basal skull fracture and a comminuted fracture of the occipital bone and features of cerebral edema.”  Neurosurgeon Dr. Roger A. Ray immediately took the employee to the operating room where he performed an emergency left craniotomy.  The employee’s bone flap could not be replaced and was placed in storage."

The commission concluded the witness' statement was  laden with inconsistencies regarding prior marijuana use on the job, the ability to see what the claimant was smoking and was inconsistent with the employer's own statements.  The witness admitted he made an untrue statement about prior marijuana uses on the job.  Although it may  "looked like" claimant was smoking marijuana on the morning of the accident, such lay evidence was an inadequate foundation to support the affirmative defense.

The Commission gave greater weight to claimant's expert that it was speculative to infer impairment from marijuana 8 hours after ingestion.  The claimant  impeached Dr. Long who conceded in previous cases that he felt impairment could be inferred at 5 hours, and not 8 hours, unless  “someone had a Rastafarian-type stogie."

The Commission found insufficient evidence to support the drug penalty:

'The penalty provisions of § 287.120.6(1) only apply if the employee’s injury was sustained in conjunction with the use of alcohol or non prescribed drugs.   Employee’s urinalysis does not show when or in what amount he may have last ingested marijuana.  It did not identify the presence of any pharmacologically active substance in employee’s system or the presence of any substances identified as controlled.  It is undisputed that the employee’s urinalysis, alone, is insufficient to establish that the employee’s injury was sustained in conjunction with the use of a non-prescribed controlled drug. "

___________________________________________________________________________

 He has testified that ingesting marijuana would not result in impairment five hours after ingestion unless “someone had a Rastafarian-type stogie."

__________________________________________________________________________


The Commission found the case of marijuana tests required something more to establish the drug penalty.  The employer offered no other evidence such as claimant smelling of marijuana when he was seen at the hospital.

The Commission found the legislature changed the law in 2017 regarding drug tests but felt the law was not retroactive and would not impact its outcome.

The Commission reversed its earlier policy which gives deference to credibility findings of administrative law judges and found a lay witness and an expert were not credible, contrary to the findings of the ALJ.  The Commission suggests the employer over-relied on an affidavit with erroneous statements and seems to leave an open question whether such errors were intentional or not.



ALJ  Siedlik
Atty:  Frank, Allen
Experts:  Cary, Long
Treating:  Ray