WILLIE LIAS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDERSON & SHAH ROOFING, INC., AND BRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INSURANCE CO., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of workers' compensation benefits where the judge erroneously applied a rebuttable presumption regarding drug test results without first establishing the test complied with statutory procedures.
A rebuttable presumption under section 440.09(7)(b) requiring an employee to prove by clear and convincing evidence that drug influence did not contribute to injuries cannot be applied unless the employer first establishes the drug test was administered by a facility complying with statutory and administrative procedures.
[1] A rebuttable presumption that drug influence contributed to workplace injuries under section 440.09(7)(b) cannot be invoked unless the employer establishes the drug test…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee suffered a workplace accident and underwent a routine urine test that detected traces of a cocaine derivative. The employer denied the wor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Compensability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals the denial of compensability because traces of a cocaine derivative were found in Claimant’s system following a routine urine test performed immediately following a work-place accident. Claimant also appeals the denial of medical bills incurred prior to notification to Claimant’s medical providers that the claim was denied due to Claimant’s positive drug test. We reverse and remand.
The JCC found the Employer/Carrier “made a valiant effort to implement a drug-free workplace” but it was unable to ascertain whether Claimant’s drug test was administered by a facility utilizing procedure which complies with the statute and administrative rules. The JCC therefore erroneously applied the rebuttable presumption in section 440.09(7)(b), requiring Claimant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the influence of drugs did not contribute to his injuries. § 440.09(7)(a) & (b). See Wright v. DSK Group, 821 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Temporary Labor Source v. E.H., 765 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Because the JCC incorrectly applied the law by reducing the Employer/Carrier’s burden of proof, we reverse and remand for the JCC to apply the correct burden of proof to determine compensability, and award medical bills, if any, that are compensable.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN, BOOTH and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lias v. Anderson & Shah Roofing, Inc., 867 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…aine in Appellant’s body, but Employer/Carrier “was unable to ascertain whether claimant’s drug test was administered by a facility utilizing procedure which complies with the statute and administrative rules.” Lias v. Anderson & Shah Roofing, Inc., 831 So. 2d 1236, 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Notwithstanding this failure of proof, workers’ compensation benefits were denied because the JCC applied the presumption available under section 440.09(7), Florida Statutes, that the injury was primarily caused by the use…
Authorities Cited
- Temporary Labor Source v. E.H., 765 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Tobias L. Rolle v. State, 821 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)