Worker's Marijuana Use Before Injury Supplies Employer with Intoxication Presumption

Baton Rouge, LA (WorkersCompensation.com) – A workplace injury that occurs due to intoxication can make a claim for benefits go up in smoke.

For example, in Griffith v. CMR Construction & Maintenance Resources, No. 54,443-WCA (La. Ct. App. 04/13/22), a worker’s testing positive for marijuana after his on-the-job injury burned his chances for receiving compensation.

A foreman for a construction company experienced “numerous” broken bones and internal injuries when he fell 30 feet from the roof of an airplane hangar.

The foreman filed a disputed claim for compensation, seeking authorization of medical treatment and payment of disability benefits. The company, along with its insurer, denied benefits because the foreman’s accident was caused by his intoxication at the time of the accident.

The workers’ compensation judge found that the company proved that the foreman was intoxicated at the time of the accident and that the intoxication was causally linked to the accident. The WCJ also determined that the foreman did not prove that his intoxication was not a contributing cause of the accident. Thus, the foreman’s claim for benefits was denied.

The foreman appealed to court, arguing that he presented enough evidence to show that he was not intoxicated at the time of the injury.

In Louisiana, workers’ compensation benefits are not available for injuries caused by an injured employee’s intoxication at the time of the injury. Additionally, the results of employer-administered drug tests are considered admissible evidence. Relevant to the foreman’s claim, if there is, at the time of the accident, evidence of either on- or off-the-job marijuana use, Louisiana law creates a presumption that the employee was intoxicated at the time of the accident.

In finding in the company’s favor, the court explained that the test results showed a level of cannabinoids that was more than eight times the threshold to excluded the possibility of passive inhalation of marijuana.

Although there was evidence that a skylight that the foreman fell through might have been similar in color to the part of the roof that he could walk on, the skylights were distinguishable in size, shape, and texture, and it appeared, according to the court, that the foreman was not looking where he was stepping.

Additionally, expert evidence concluded that the foreman was a chromic user of marijuana.

The court ultimately concluded that the presumption of intoxication applied and the foreman did not put forth evidence to overcome that presumption.

As a result, the court upheld the WCJ’s ruling.

Share This Article: