With No Reasonable Suspicion, Fatal Boat Explosion didn’t Warrant Drug Testing

Case File

An explosion on the job that killed and injured people prompted a Florida employer to seek drug and alcohol testing for blood drawn from a worker involved in the incident when he received treatment at the hospital, but a lack of reasonable suspicion to test defeated the employer's case. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Griffith v. Nautical Ventures Group Inc., No. 24-027228DAL (OJCC Fla. 01/21/25)

What Happened

A worker and several of his co-employees were working on a boat when it exploded, killing one and injury four. The worker was treated for injuries at the hospital.

Following the incident, the employer requested to be allowed to test blood samples drawn from the worker while he was at the hospital for the presence of alcohol or drugs.

The worker argued that the employer presented no evidence that it had reason to suspect the injury was occasioned by the alleged intoxication of the worker or by the use of any drug. The worker also argued that there was no request that he submit to a drug test and that the blood samples taken at the hospital were for medical purposes only.

The case came before the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims

Rule of Law

In Florida, a drug test performed for medical purposes may be admissible to support an intoxication defense, the presumption does not arise as the result of a positive confirmation drug test using a medically drawn sample.

If an employer implements a drug-free workplace program, the employer may require the employee to submit to a drug test for the presence of drugs or alcohol and, if a drug or alcohol is found to be present, the employee may be terminated and his eligibility for medical and indemnity benefits forfeited.

Even in the absence of the employer's implementation of a drug free workplace program, if the employer has reason to suspect that the injury was occasioned primarily by the intoxication of the employee or by the use of any drug that affected the employee to the extent that the employee's normal faculties were impaired, the employer may require the employee to submit to a test for the presence of drugs or alcohol in his system.

While such “reasonable suspicion drug testing” may be performed just by virtue of the claimant having been involved in an accident while at work where the employer qualifies as a drug-free workplace, the employer must have a reasonable suspicion in order to test.

Where the evidence does not support a finding that the influence of drugs was the primary cause of the accident, the injury would not be occasioned primarily by the intoxication of the employee.

What the OJCC Said

According to the OJCC, no evidence was presented that, even in the absence of a drug-free workplace program, the employer had any reason to suspect this claimant's injury was occasioned primarily by his alleged intoxication.

Thus, the OJCC declined to require that the blood samples taken by the hospital be tested or released for testing, ruling in the worker's favor.

Takeaway

If a claimant's intoxication was not the primary cause of the accident, but only a remote, if any, cause, or if a completely sober person could have suffered the same accident which the claimant did, the injury would not be primarily
occasioned by the claimant's intoxication.

Share This Article: