Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Willie LIAS, Appellant, v. ANDERSON & SHAH ROOFING, INC., and Bridgefield Employers Insurance Co., Appellees.
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.
PER CURIAM.
ERVIN, BOOTH and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 1D01-4100.
Decided: December 12, 2002
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,First District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)