(Florida)

Rant, rave, share expiences, seek comfort - this forum is a general category. If you have a legal or medical question, go to Questions and Advise.

(Florida)

Postby b riddel on Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:04 am

can i establish a case with cannibis found in my urine?
b riddel
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:51 am

Re: (Florida) cannabis in urine

Postby b riddel on Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:08 am

want to knoww somthin about establishing a case with cannibis in my urine,low levels.
b riddel
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:51 am

Re: (Florida)

Postby davidd on Sat Mar 16, 2013 2:37 pm

Hi b riddel -

I don't know FL law very well, but my recollection is that it must be shown that whatever drug or alcohol is found in your system contributed to the incident causing your injury in order for it to be a viable defense.

Your best bet is to consult with an attorney in your state.
User avatar
davidd
Site Admin
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: (Florida)

Postby davidd on Sat Mar 16, 2013 2:45 pm

I did some quick research.

Compensation is not payable if the injury was occasioned primarily by the intoxication of the employee; by the influence of any drugs, barbiturates, or other stimulants not prescribed by a physician . . . . § 440.09(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). See Thomas v. Ace-USA, et al., 1D08-4503 (2009).

The medical evidence must comply with the chain of possession requirements in chapter 59A-24 of the Florida Administrative Code. European Marble Co. vs. Thomas Robinson (1D03-4655, 11/05/04).

See Wright v. DSK Group, 821 So.2d 455 (2002):

The judge found that claimant had "smoked marijuana on the day of his injury." There is evidence, in the form of testimony from witnesses, to support such a finding. However, the judge incorrectly concluded that, because of the presumption authorized in certain cases by section 440.09(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), claimant was required to establish "by clear and convincing evidence that the intoxication or influence of the drug did not contribute to the injury."


Before the presumption authorized by section 440.09(7)(b) can come into play, the employer must establish that "the employee ha[d], at the time of the injury, a blood alcohol level equal to or greater than the level specified in s. 316.193, or . . . a positive confirmation of a drug." (Emphasis added.) It is clear that the employer did not meet this burden because it did not require claimant to submit to drug testing until nine days after the work-related injury had occurred. Therefore, the employer was not entitled to the benefit of the presumption authorized by section 440.09(7)(b). Instead, it was obliged to establish, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the work-related injury "was occasioned primarily by the intoxication of the employee; [or] by the influence of any drugs, barbiturates, or other stimulants not prescribed by a physician." § 440.09(3), Fla. Stat. (1999). See generally Temporary Labor Source v. E.H., 765 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (affirming a ruling that the presumption authorized by section 440.09(7)(b) does not arise when confirmation testing did not conform with applicable rules and that, as a result, the employer was required to establish that the injury was caused primarily by the influence of drugs), review denied, 786 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2001). Because the judge incorrectly applied the law in this case, thereby reducing the employer's burden of proof, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
User avatar
davidd
Site Admin
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:09 pm


Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest