Position paper presented at CSIMS 2024 by Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Friends Research Institute (friendsresearch.org) Disclaimers: The opinions expressed in this article...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 8 August 2024 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The June 13, 2024 edition of the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
LexisNexis has selected some of the top “noteworthy” panel decisions issued by the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board during the period January through June 2024. The first...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It is well understood that the California Insurance Guarantee Association...
A Texas appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that a truck driver’s death in a vehicular accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment where an autopsy report revealed the presence of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in the driver’s blood and urine tests. The guardian ad litem had presented an affidavit and letter from a physician that challenged the validity of the post-mortem toxicological testing, but produced no other evidence to rebut the intoxication presumption found in Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 401.013(c). The court said the physician’s affidavit did not speak to the issue. Under the statute, once the existence of the controlled substance was detected in the blood or urine, there arose a rebuttable presumption that the person was intoxicated and did not have the normal use of mental or physical faculties. At that point, the burden shifted to the employee’s representative to prove that he or she was not intoxicated at the time of the accident. The court continued, saying that the rebuttable presumption was in place, regardless of whether it was founded on medically and toxicologically sound theory. The propriety of the presumption was not before the court; it was tasked only with studying the record for evidence that the driver was not intoxicated at the time of the motor vehicle accident. No evidence rebutted the presumption, so the trial court’s decision was appropriate.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Denham v. Texas Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 7281 (July 15, 2015) [2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 7281 (July 15, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 36.03 [36.03]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site