ALJ Erred in Imposing New Requirements to Establish Intoxication
The Appeals Panel has reversed the decision and order of a benefit contested case hearing officer that found a claimant to have sustained a compensable injury while not in a state of intoxication. The Appeals Panel has now squarely held that a positive drug test by blood or urine testing is all that is required to create the presumption that the employee was intoxicated at the time of the accident. No additional requirements can be imposed by the Administrative Law Judge.
The Appeals Panel remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge to apply the proper standard for creating a presumption of intoxication. The appeal is posted in Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel Decision No. 171115, decided July 10, 2017.
The claimant testified that he was injured on when he fell approximately 12 feet from scaffolding while working to set up a stage. He was transported by ambulance to the hospital. Medical records reflected that a urinalysis was performed on the date of injury and that the claimant tested positive for cannabinoids. Those records reflect that the results were only preliminary analytical test results and that a more specific alternate chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Additionally, the carrier offered a second urinalysis into evidence. That test was performed on June 2, 2016, at another medical facility and also reflected that the claimant tested positive for cannabinoids.
The Administrative Law Judge resolved the disputed issues by deciding that: (1) the claimant sustained a compensable injury; (2) the claimed injury did not occur while the claimant was in a state of intoxication, thereby not relieving the carrier from liability for compensation; and (3) the claimant had disability resulting from the compensable injury, beginning on May 27, 2016, and continuing through the date of the CCH.
In her discussion of the evidence the Administrative Law Judge referenced the June 2, 2016, urinalysis and stated that the claimant’s urine specimen was tested for cannabinoids and other controlled substances and the claimant tested negative for all controlled substances. However, the June 2, 2016, urinalysis shows a positive result for cannabinoids. The Administrative Law Judge also stated, in part, that the initial drug screen performed on the date of the injury provided insufficient testing information. She found that the evidence concerning drug testing was not persuasive to create a rebuttable presumption that the claimant was intoxicated and did not have the normal use of his mental or physical faculties at the time of the injury.
The Appeals Panel disagreed.
Section 401.013(c) refers to a positive drug test based on a blood test or urinalysis but does not specify any other requirements to establish a rebuttable presumption of intoxication. In evidence are two drug tests based on a urinalysis which reflect the claimant tested positive for marijuana. The hearing officer’s failure to apply a rebuttable presumption to the facts of this case is legal error. Therefore, we reverse the hearing officer’s determination that the claimed injury did not occur while the claimant was in a state of intoxication as defined in Section 401.013. We remand the intoxication issue back to the hearing officer for her to apply the correct standard as set out in Section 401.013 by applying the presumption of intoxication under Section 401.013(c) based on the positive urinalysis for cannabinoids/marijuana in evidence. (Emphasis added)
Because the Appeals Panel reversed the intoxication finding and remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge to make proper findings, it also reversed the compensability and disability findings.
FOLIO
