Marijuana.com

Lit_Match

Court Rejects Company's Pot Claim
04.12.07|Associated Press

A man injured while working for a Sioux Falls landscaping company can get workers' compensation benefits because the company failed to show the accident was caused by his off-duty use of marijuana, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The high court unanimously upheld the state Labor Department's decision to allow workers' compensation insurance to pay benefits for Thomas VanSteenwyk, who was hurt while working for Baumgartner Trees and Landscaping.

Baumgartner had argued that VanSteenwyk should not get workers' compensation benefits because his use of marijuana the night before the accident was a substantial factor in causing his injuries.

But the Supreme Court agreed with the Labor Department's ruling that Baumgartner's expert witnesses failed to prove that marijuana was a cause of the April 30, 2004, mishap.

VanSteenwyk's leg was injured when he was attempting to connect the bucket to a skid-steer loader. His leg was caught between the cab and a hydraulic arm as he stood to kick a locking lever that would not engage, according to court records.

VanSteenwyk acknowledged that he had smoked marijuana daily for 15-20 years before the accident. He never smoked marijuana in the morning or at work, but he routinely used pot in the evening after work, according to testimony in the case.

The evening before the accident, VanSteenwyk went to his supervisor's home to smoke marijuana after work, just as the two had done for the past year. VanSteenwyk said he then went to his home in Canistota, spent the evening with his family, and smoked another joint before going to bed around midnight.

The next day about 11:30 a.m., VanSteenwyk removed the fork attachment from the front of the loader and tried to replace it with a bucket. The bucket was difficult to attach because it had been damaged, so company owner Brian Baumgartner had instructed employees operating the skid loader to stand up and kick a lever to lock the bucket in place on the hydraulic arm, according to court records.

When VanSteenwyk stood to kick the locking lever with his right leg, his left foot accidentally hit a pedal that lowered the hydraulic arm. He required medical care because his right leg was caught between the cab and the hydraulic arm.

A hospital test revealed marijuana in VanSteenwyk's body.

Baumgartner had not instructed employees to use locking pins that prevented the hydraulic arm from lowering during the changing of attachments, and Baumgartner did not use the pins himself, according to court documents. A safety feature that shut down the hydraulic system when the seat belt was unbuckled also had been altered.

Baumgartner contended that VanSteenwyk should not be covered by workers' compensation insurance because the injury was caused by his impairment from marijuana use.

At a Labor Department hearing, an expert for Baumgartner testified that the high level of drug in VanSteenwyk's body meant he was impaired at the time of the accident. But the expert also said he could not say that the marijuana use caused the accident.

None of Baumgartner's expert witnesses could offer an opinion on what role, if any, VanSteenwyk's marijuana use played in the accident, the Supreme Court said.

State law provides that workers' compensation benefits are not allowed for any injury or death due to the worker's willful misconduct, which can include illegal drug use, the high court said.

However, workers' compensation benefits can be denied only if an employer shows that a worker's willful misconduct caused an injury, the Supreme Court said. The justices upheld the Labor Department's ruling that Baumgartner failed to prove that VanSteenwyk's marijuana use caused the accident.

__________________
Donation links to NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) | MPP (Marijuana Policy Project)

 

Victor_vicious

This really makes sense. The employer hasn't had his equipment fixed so it works properly. He has instructed his employees on how they should bypass safety features that would stop this kind of accident from happening. Sounds like this is his defense. Its not my faulty equipment that caused this accident.
I bet a lawyer would have fun with this. VV

Buzzby

More correctly, the test revealed cannabinoid metabolites in VanSteenwyk's body. The actual cannabinoids would have been long gone.

It sounds to me like VanSteenwyk has excellent grounds on which to sue his employer.

The high level of what drug? THC metabolites are not psychoactive.

__________________

nerphroll

Score one for our team.

I agree that the guy's marijuana use had no bearing on the accident, but I guess this firm has no formal drug policy. Otherwise they should have been able to counter that the guy did not deserve benefits since he was in violation of company policy by testing positive for drugs while being an employee. It may not have let them squeak by the incident, but I'd bet this guy no longer has a job with this company unfortunately.

__________________
HELP ME IVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR OVER 13 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!
PURIFY ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sec

If his employer is as cheap and unwilling to accept blame as this article makes him out to be, this guy would be better off with a different employer anyway.

He did the job exactly as the employer told him to do. The employer is to blame entirely for the accident by disabling the safety devices and not properly repairing the equipment.

__________________
Guidelines.
Search
http://www.marijuana.com/drug-test/index

 

Abomonog

Wrong. It is not the employers but the operators job to ensure all of the safety devices are enabled on heavy equipment. Not only does this man deserve to lose his compensation, he should be removed from the job for operating a problematic and potentially dangerous piece of equipment.

It's stupid that marijuana even became an issue. The man operated a piece of heavy equipment with the safeties removed. He should lose his job for it and his boss should lose his buisiness liscense for allowing the safeties to be removed in the first place. END OF STORY.

__________________
It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack!

Sec

His boss not only ALLOWED the safety devices to be removed, he removed them himself. Then he instructed his employees on how to bypass the safety devices that remained in place and how to force the fit of the bucket by kicking the lever.

If this employee had not done the work as instructed, but rather refused to work with unsafe equipment, he would have been fired. Sure, he could have complained to the labor department or OSHA, but still, he would have lost his job. He did not anticipate the injury, he was only trying to do his job as instructed.

Yep, we should all stand on a soapbox and refuse to work unsafely. Nope, we aren't going to stand on that chair and change a light bulb, we are going to call the janitor, maintenance, electrician, whoever to do it for us. All while the boss looks on approvingly. --NOT--

You also shouldn't be typing on this forum unless you have an ergonomically correct keyboard and wrist supports. You should be safe no matter where you are, even at home.

GET REAL. I have worked enough construction sites to know that broken equipment and tools are the norm, not the exception. Every manager, employer, general foreman and safety director knows it. Even companies with very good safety records harbor broken equipment until it can be replaced or repaired. The workers operate under the idea that "this will have to do, we don't have a better one right now, and I need to complete this task". If the employer doesn't disable the broken equipment or tag it (tag out / lock out) so it is unusable until it can be repaired or replaced, it is the employers responsibility if an employee gets injured while using unsafe equipment. Even if the employee has prior knowledge of the defective equipment. He was still hurt on the job, due to the negligence of his employer.
It is the boss's job to discourage and prevent working with unsafe equipment. It is not to encourage and educate the employees on how to work unsafely. Then, when the worst case happens, try to blame the employee for the employer's own negligence and disregard of the employees health and welfare.

This is a rule (or rather, job description) put in place or required by employers or labor organizations of their employees, not by the labor department. Ultimately, it is the employer who should be legally liable for any defective equipment and the consequences of working with said equipment.

troublemaker_42

I completely agree with Sec, and obviously, the court does as well. i'll take the legal knowledge of the SC over Abomonog any day, but thats just me.

Being from SD though, I found this a bit suprising. I agree with the outcome, but given the justices record on all things drug-related, I still found it a bit suprsing.