Skip to main content

May 24, 2022

Volume XII, Number 144

National Law Review
  • Login
  • FB
  • twt
  • link
  • home
  • rss
Advertisement
  • logo
  • Publish / Advertise with Us
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Join Our Team
    • Search
  • Trending Legal News
    • Most Recent
    • Legal News Podcast
    • What's Trending
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • NLR Blog
    • Search
  • About Us
    • About the NLR
    • NLR Team
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • NLR Thought Leadership Awards
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Search
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Search
  • Quick Links
    • Legal News Podcast
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Search
  • ENEWSBULLETINS

 

New Articles
Bottom Row Image
Advertisement

May 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Court Holds That Initialing A Will Is Sufficient To Meet The... by: David Fowler Johnson
  • Blockchain and Metaverse Legal Issues for the Government and... by: James G. Gatto and Yasamin Parsafar
  • Congress Takes Steps to Prioritize Youth Mental Health by: Harry Sporidis and Rachel E. Feinstein
  • California Court of Appeal Clarifies that a Derivative Plaintiff Must... by: John P. Stigi III and Alejandro E. Moreno
  • Fifth Circuit Holds That SEC Administrative Law Courts Are... by: David Slovick and Vincent P. (Trace) Schmeltz III
  • US EPA Adoption of New Phase I ASTM Standard E1527 Delayed by Adverse... by: Gary L. Pasheilich
  • Understanding the Delta Among State Privacy Statutes: Jurisdictional... by: David A. Zetoony
  • Colorado Joins Movement to Limit Non-Competes to High Earners by: John F. Birmingham Jr.
  • Milestone Agreement to Pay U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team Equally... by: Rachel E. Green
  • Court Holds That Judges Can’t Invent Rules Governing Arbitration... by: Stuart M. Gerson
  • Connecticut Legislature Seeks to Codify Limitations on Noncompetes by: Erik W. Weibust
  • Telecom Alert:Broadband Speed Goals NPRM; WEA Pleading Cycle;... by: Gregory E. Kunkle and Casey Lide
  • California Supreme Court Rules Additional Penalties May Be... by: Leonora M. Schloss
  • Mississippi’s New Vaccine-Choice Law: All Fluff, No Wrongful... by: Christina M. Seanor and Matthew C. Lonergan
  • The Biden Administration Re-Proposes to Tax Carried Interests as... by: Robert A. Friedman and Arnold P May
  • New York Enacts Legislation Regulating Pharmacy Benefit Managers by: Steven L. Imber and Jennifer L. Osborn
  • Preparation of Corporate and M&A Documents for Proposed 2022... by: Nathan P. Emeritz and Justin E. Mann
  • Beware OFAC in a Time of Sanctions by: Peter D. Hutcheon
  • Banks Set to Abandon SPAC Market as SEC Proposes New Rules by: David A. Lopez-Kurtz
  • Weekly IRS Roundup May 16 – May 20, 2022 by: Tax Practice Group McDermott Will Emery
  • China’s National Intellectual Property Administration Approves... by: Aaron Wininger
  • Los Angeles Superior Court Invalidates California Law Requiring... by: John P. Stigi III and Alejandro E. Moreno
  • ROUND 1 TO THE BAD GUYS: FTSA Survives First Serious Constitutional... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Timber Briefing: U.S. Lumber Prices Could Be Affected by Sanctions on... by: Daniel C. Kelly-Stallings and Marisa N. Bocci
  • US Executive Branch Update – May 23, 2022 by: Stacy A. Swanson
  • Antitrust Enforcers’ Third “Listening Forum” On Merger Reform... by: Arindam Kar
  • Fifth Circuit Holds SEC’s In-House Courts and Judges Unconstitutional by: Joshua M. Newville and Julia D. Alonzo
  • The Feds Double Down (Again): SEC Adds 20 Positions to Cryptocurrency... by: Matthew G. Lindenbaum and Robert L. Lindholm
  • Biden Revisions to the NEPA Regulations Now in Effect by: Alexander L. Merritt and Kathryn C. Kafka
  • Jury Awards $450,000 For Employer’s Termination of Employee After... by: Nicole A. Eichberger and Atoyia S. Harris
  • University Of Groningen And University Of Graz Scientists Create A... by: Lynn L. Bergeson and Ligia Duarte Botelho
  • New Draft Guidance on FDA Enforcement Discretion for Past-Due NDI... by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • On Her Shoulders, Season 2 Episode 5 - Interview with Jenna Banks [... by: Corinne Smith
  • FTC Blog: “The FTC Act Creates a De Facto Breach Disclosure... by: Joseph J. Lazzarotti
  • Bill Would Require Passively-Managed Funds To Vote Proxies As... by: Keith Paul Bishop

May 22, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • How Peeps Reinvented Itself Through Brand Partnerships and Clever... by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • Preparing to Testify in Response to an SEC Subpoena by: Dr. Nick Oberheiden
  • EARTH SHATTERING CHANGE?: FTC Proposes Huge (and Potentially... by: Eric J. Troutman

May 21, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Improvements to ECHA’s Chemicals Database Include Nanomaterial Form... by: Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
  • OFCCP Identifies Contractors Selected for FY2022 Compliance Audits by: Jack Blum
  • I’m Pretty Sure the FTC’s New Document Seizure (er Preservation) NPRM... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Mississippi Gaming Commission Meeting Report May 2022 by: Thomas B. Shepherd III and Christopher S. Pace
  • MARKETERS BEWARE– Oklahoma Governor Stitt Signs Oklahoma’s Mini-TCPA... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Massachusetts Appeals Court Excuses City’s Notice-by-Mail Fail by: Kathleen M. Heyer
  • Spoofing vs. DIDS: Court’s Recent Refusal to Allow Subpoena for Phone... by: Eric J. Troutman

Article By

Kathryn J. Russo

Jackson Lewis P.C.
Drug and Alcohol Testing Law Advisor Blog
Jackson Lewis Logo

Related Practices & Jurisdictions


  • Labor & Employment
  • Personal Injury
  • Litigation / Trial Practice
  • Oklahoma
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • Download PDF
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Tweet
Advertisement

Oklahoma Court Holds That Positive Marijuana Drug Test Did Not Prove That Marijuana Caused Accident

Thursday, October 24, 2019

An Oklahoma state court held that a positive post-accident drug test for marijuana did not prove that marijuana use caused the accident, and therefore the claimant was eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. Rose v. Berry Plastics Corp. et al., 2019 OK Civ. App. 55 (Ok. Civ. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2019).

Claimant Dillon Rose’s left hand and wrist were crushed in a “guillotine” machine while working as a machine operator for his employer. He was subjected to a post-accident drug test and tested positive for marijuana and morphine.   Rose’s workers’ compensation claim initially was denied due to the positive drug test results. At a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), Rose admitted that he smoked marijuana the night before the accident but denied that its use was a factor in the accident the next day. On the day of the accident, Rose worked for a few hours and testified that no supervisors remarked that he was or appeared to be impaired. While he acknowledged that putting his hand inside the machine was unsafe, he testified that he was “thinking clearly” and was not impaired. A manager employed by the employer testified that he had no knowledge of Rose being intoxicated. The ALJ ruled that the employer should provide medical treatment and temporary benefits.

The employer sought a review before the Workers’ Compensation Commission, which reversed and ruled that Rose was not entitled to benefits.

Upon review of the WCC decision, the state court ruled that the WCC erred by concluding that Rose’s testimony was “self-serving.” Rather, the WCC was supposed to determine whether there was “clear and convincing evidence” to support the ALJ’s finding that intoxication had no causal relationship to the injury. There was no evidence to refute Rose’s statements about the circumstances of the accident.

The state court also held that the WCC erred when it stated “we are not convinced” that Rose was clear-headed at the time of the accident and that the chemicals in his system may have affected his “judgment, physical and cognitive facilities at the time of the accident.” The court rejected the WCC’s “inference that the mere presence of marijuana in Claimant’s blood stream inevitably means he was intoxicated. . . . the presence of an intoxicating substance in the blood does not automatically mean that person is intoxicated.”

The state court reversed and reinstated the ALJ’s order providing benefits to Rose.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 297
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • Download PDF
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Advertisement
Advertisement

Related Legal Headlines

Update: CMS Interim Final Rule Stay Lifted Nationwide, Still in Effect in Twenty-Four Plaintiff States
By
Frank C. Morris, JR
Motion for Class Certification Denied: Plaintiff Who Released ERISA Claims Deemed Unfit to Lead Class
By
Charles F. Seemann III
$1.16 million awarded in transgender employment discrimination jury trial
By
Zuckerman Law Whistleblower Practice Group
Noncompete Roundup – Oklahoma
By
Hannesson Murphy
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Court Holds That Initialing A Will Is Sufficient To Meet The Execution Requirement
By
Winstead
Blockchain and Metaverse Legal Issues for the Government and Government Contractors
By
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Congress Takes Steps to Prioritize Youth Mental Health
By
Polsinelli PC
California Court of Appeal Clarifies that a Derivative Plaintiff Must Demonstrate...
By
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Kathryn J. Russo Disability Lawsuits Attorney Jackson Lewis Law firm Alcohol Testing Lawyer
Kathryn J. Russo
Principal

Kathryn J. Russo is a Principal in the Long Island, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She is a firm resource on the legal issues implicated in workplace drug and alcohol testing arising under federal, state and local laws.

Ms. Russo assists clients with workplace problems involving drugs and alcohol, and gives advice about compliance with all pertinent drug and alcohol testing laws. She prepares substance abuse policies to comply with all federal drug and alcohol testing regulations (including all agencies of the U.S....

RussoK@jacksonlewis.com
631-247-0404
www.jacksonlewis.com
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
National Law Review
  • Antitrust Law
  • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
  • Biotech, Food, & Drug
  • Business of Law
  • Election & Legislative
  • Construction & Real Estate
  • Environmental & Energy
  • Family, Estates & Trusts
  • Financial, Securities & Banking
  • Global
  • Health Care Law
  • Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Insurance
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation
  • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
  • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
  • Tax
  • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
  • Coronavirus News
  • Law Student Writing Competition
  • Sign Up For NLR Bulletins
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs

 

As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC