It is about time that someone held the employee responsible for thier actions. I always thought that there should be a \”stupidity\” clause in the WC & GL & Auto Contracts that basically states \”if you do something stupid, we are not paying\”.
Maybe this can start a movement.
If an employer maintains an unsafe work environment and a worker is injured because of that unsafe work environment, but tests positive for trace amounts of drugs, the employer is free and clear of liability since there is no realistic way for the injured to prove the drugs did not contribute. I\’m not promoting drug or alcohol use, but this will not solve the problem. It solves the problem for the employers, who by nature of their business, hire these types of people.
Way to go legislators. Fix a problem for a select group and call it a complete fix. It must be re-election time in Az.
In addition, what happened to the employer conducting pre-employment drug screening. Another cost saved by the employer\’s who are going to benefit from this well thought out legislation? hmmmm.
I agree that something has to be done. In my state, a WC judge ruled a drunk salesman was entitled to benefits when his drunkeness caused him to pass out in an unheated mobile home that he used as a residence while on sales calls outside of his home area. This is assinine. The salemans drank from 4 pm until 2 am, went to the trailer, passed out & froze to death. How is that in the course & scope of his employment? In that case, the alcohol was a direct cause of the death, and the employer should not have to pay for it. AZ is taking a step in the right direction, and the article does state that the drugs or alcohol have to be a factor in the accident & resulting injury or death.
Workers Comp is no fault!!! If you want to kill workers comp and have employees sueing employers go thru with this nonsense.
In 28 years in loss control I have seen more employer negligence than employee negligence. Employers will be spending most of their income in lawyers fees, or penalties.
I live in AZ. AZ already had impairment exclusions in their WC program. This case, involving a contactor, working on metal stilts (drywaller, painter, etc), was injured after falling and then found to be impaired. The WC carrier denied coverage based on AZ law. The employee sued and the AZ Supreme Court ruled that WC was a no-fault situation and ruled in the employee\’s favor. I think the name was Grammatico.
The legislature is now working to re-write that law to make it stick in the courts.
Thanks for the add\’l info. I would really love to know the extent of the impairment though. It would put it all in perspective.
I think the legislature is doing the right thing. He put himself in harms way, especially if he was significantly impaired, at the expense of the employer and their carrier.
I remember the ruling in Grammatico and it was not the case that this law seeks to correct. Grammatico\’s drug use did not cause his injury but the toxicology report was used at the basis for denying his benefits. I think this law will only excacerbate the problem; it sure will be a boon for employers who will no longer have to worry about losses, if their employees are not teatotallers.
Sam, your example seems like a clear case as the impairement obviously could have been proved through a blood test. The law is way to loosey goosey the way the article portrays it
My point, and that of some of the others, is that trace amounts do not constitute impairment. These legislators are trying to impose a global standard of impairment that is not based in fact.
Drunk dirving for instance – a BAC of .08 my be impairment to one driver but not impairment to another. Global, generic standards allow goverments to further take away our freedoms or benefit a specific class of business or people. Look at how much non-profits AAIM and MADD benefit from these global, unscientific standards.
Until testing for drug or alcohol impairment can be done SCIENTIFICALLY for EACH INDIVIDUAL, I see many abuses that can take place by irresponsible employers and their carriers (and the police for that matter with regards to DUI). A trace can not equal negligence (on the job) on the employees part. That\’s the bottom line
It is about time that someone held the employee responsible for thier actions. I always thought that there should be a \”stupidity\” clause in the WC & GL & Auto Contracts that basically states \”if you do something stupid, we are not paying\”.
Maybe this can start a movement.
So, what you\’re saying Mike is:
If an employer maintains an unsafe work environment and a worker is injured because of that unsafe work environment, but tests positive for trace amounts of drugs, the employer is free and clear of liability since there is no realistic way for the injured to prove the drugs did not contribute. I\’m not promoting drug or alcohol use, but this will not solve the problem. It solves the problem for the employers, who by nature of their business, hire these types of people.
Way to go legislators. Fix a problem for a select group and call it a complete fix. It must be re-election time in Az.
In addition, what happened to the employer conducting pre-employment drug screening. Another cost saved by the employer\’s who are going to benefit from this well thought out legislation? hmmmm.
I agree that something has to be done. In my state, a WC judge ruled a drunk salesman was entitled to benefits when his drunkeness caused him to pass out in an unheated mobile home that he used as a residence while on sales calls outside of his home area. This is assinine. The salemans drank from 4 pm until 2 am, went to the trailer, passed out & froze to death. How is that in the course & scope of his employment? In that case, the alcohol was a direct cause of the death, and the employer should not have to pay for it. AZ is taking a step in the right direction, and the article does state that the drugs or alcohol have to be a factor in the accident & resulting injury or death.
Workers Comp is no fault!!! If you want to kill workers comp and have employees sueing employers go thru with this nonsense.
In 28 years in loss control I have seen more employer negligence than employee negligence. Employers will be spending most of their income in lawyers fees, or penalties.
I\’d like to see what sort of case(s) prompted action by the legislators of this state.
If an employee\’s reckless conduct with regards to alcohol or drugs resulted in injury or death, he should not be due comp benefits.
As with anything, an employer might utilize this to defend some very questionable cases….
I live in AZ. AZ already had impairment exclusions in their WC program. This case, involving a contactor, working on metal stilts (drywaller, painter, etc), was injured after falling and then found to be impaired. The WC carrier denied coverage based on AZ law. The employee sued and the AZ Supreme Court ruled that WC was a no-fault situation and ruled in the employee\’s favor. I think the name was Grammatico.
The legislature is now working to re-write that law to make it stick in the courts.
Thanks for the add\’l info. I would really love to know the extent of the impairment though. It would put it all in perspective.
I think the legislature is doing the right thing. He put himself in harms way, especially if he was significantly impaired, at the expense of the employer and their carrier.
I remember the ruling in Grammatico and it was not the case that this law seeks to correct. Grammatico\’s drug use did not cause his injury but the toxicology report was used at the basis for denying his benefits. I think this law will only excacerbate the problem; it sure will be a boon for employers who will no longer have to worry about losses, if their employees are not teatotallers.
Sam, your example seems like a clear case as the impairement obviously could have been proved through a blood test. The law is way to loosey goosey the way the article portrays it
My point, and that of some of the others, is that trace amounts do not constitute impairment. These legislators are trying to impose a global standard of impairment that is not based in fact.
Drunk dirving for instance – a BAC of .08 my be impairment to one driver but not impairment to another. Global, generic standards allow goverments to further take away our freedoms or benefit a specific class of business or people. Look at how much non-profits AAIM and MADD benefit from these global, unscientific standards.
Until testing for drug or alcohol impairment can be done SCIENTIFICALLY for EACH INDIVIDUAL, I see many abuses that can take place by irresponsible employers and their carriers (and the police for that matter with regards to DUI). A trace can not equal negligence (on the job) on the employees part. That\’s the bottom line