Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Where a post-injury drug test could not be offered as evidence because it had not been verified according to the requirements described in La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1081, it would also be improper to allow the use of the test to establish a fraud defense under La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1208, held a Louisiana appellate court. The court said it would be illogical to prohibit the unconfirmed drug test to be used to deny benefits under one statutory provision only to allow it to disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits under another.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Parson v. Truck Parts & Equip., Inc., 2019-00743 (La. 10/01/19), 2019 La. LEXIS 2437 (Oct. 1, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 36.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see