Recent Developments from Around the States

Statutes Restricting Workers' Compensation Benefits

A full panel of the Arizona Supreme Court has held that two state statutes, which bar the recovery of workers' compensation benefits by employees who test positive for drugs or alcohol and cannot prove that their use of these substances did not contribute to the accident, are unconstitutional. Grammatico v. Industrial Comm'n, 2005 WL 1896248 (Ariz. Aug. 10).

In making this determination, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed two separate cases, Grammatico v. Industrial Comm'n and Komalestewa v. Industrial Comm'n, involving the application of Arizona Revised Statutes Sections (ARS) 23-1021(D) and 23-1021(C) and Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution. Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution states that workers are entitled to compensation if they are injured in “any accident arising out of and in the course of … employment.” Section 8 is applicable to any injury that is “caused in whole, or in part, or is contributed to, by a necessary risk or danger of such employment, or a necessary risk or danger inherent in the nature thereof, or by failure of such employer or its agents or employee or employees to exercise due care.” Under A.R.S. 23-1021(D), if an employer maintains a certified drug-testing policy, “an employee's injury … shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable … if the employee fails to pass … a drug test for the unlawful use of any controlled substance,” unless the employee proves that the use of an unlawful substance “was not a contributing cause of the employee's injury.” A.R.S. 23-1021(C) similarly provides that “[a]n employee's injury … shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable … if the impairment of the employee is due to the employee's use of alcohol … and is a substantial contributing cause of the employee's personal injury,” meaning that it is anything more than a slight contributing cause (' 23-1021(H)(2)).

David Grammatico, the plaintiff in the first case reviewed by the Supreme Court, suffered a broken arm and knee when he fell off of drywall stilts at a construction site. Because he admitted smoking marijuana and taking methamphetamine the weekend before the accident and failed to prove that his drug use did not contribute to his injuries, the Arizona Industrial Commission, applying A.R.S. ' 23-1021(D), denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits. However, the court of appeals reversed, finding that this statutory provision was unconstitutional in that it added a restriction on the benefits guaranteed by Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona constitution. The plaintiff in the Komalestewa case was injured when his arm was caught in a conveyor belt. Even though witnesses testified that Komalestewa did not appear intoxicated on the morning of the accident, blood tests taken at the hospital afterwards indicated that he had alcohol in his blood, and he admitted to ingesting four mixed drinks on the night before the accident. Therefore, pursuant to A.R.S. ' 23-1021(C), the Arizona Industrial Commission denied Komalestewa workers' compensation. However, on appeal, a different panel of the appeals court than that which reasoned in the Grammatico decision, affirmed the Industrial Commission's decision. The cases were consolidated for review when appeals were made from both decisions to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The Arizona Supreme Court found that the two statutory sections at issue violated Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution in that “if alcohol or drug use contributed even slightly to the accident” these statutes denied compensation “even if a necessary risk or danger of employment partially or substantially caused or contributed to the accident.” The Supreme Court determined that Article 18, Section 8 did not allow the legislature “to limit legal causation in that manner.” While the Court indicated there were powerful public policy considerations at work behind the two statutory provisions, namely, banning the use of controlled substances at the workplace, it acknowledged the need to refrain from effectively changing the state constitution to deny workers' compensation where employees fail a drug or alcohol test, even while their injuries were caused wholly or partially by necessary employment risks or dangers. Thus, the appeals court decision in Grammatico was upheld and that in Komalestewa was affirmed accordingly.

Statutes Restricting Workers' Compensation Benefits

A full panel of the Arizona Supreme Court has held that two state statutes, which bar the recovery of workers' compensation benefits by employees who test positive for drugs or alcohol and cannot prove that their use of these substances did not contribute to the accident, are unconstitutional. Grammatico v. Industrial Comm'n, 2005 WL 1896248 (Ariz. Aug. 10).

In making this determination, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed two separate cases, Grammatico v. Industrial Comm'n and Komalestewa v. Industrial Comm'n, involving the application of Arizona Revised Statutes Sections (ARS) 23-1021(D) and 23-1021(C) and Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution. Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution states that workers are entitled to compensation if they are injured in “any accident arising out of and in the course of … employment.” Section 8 is applicable to any injury that is “caused in whole, or in part, or is contributed to, by a necessary risk or danger of such employment, or a necessary risk or danger inherent in the nature thereof, or by failure of such employer or its agents or employee or employees to exercise due care.” Under A.R.S. 23-1021(D), if an employer maintains a certified drug-testing policy, “an employee's injury … shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable … if the employee fails to pass … a drug test for the unlawful use of any controlled substance,” unless the employee proves that the use of an unlawful substance “was not a contributing cause of the employee's injury.” A.R.S. 23-1021(C) similarly provides that “[a]n employee's injury … shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable … if the impairment of the employee is due to the employee's use of alcohol … and is a substantial contributing cause of the employee's personal injury,” meaning that it is anything more than a slight contributing cause (' 23-1021(H)(2)).

David Grammatico, the plaintiff in the first case reviewed by the Supreme Court, suffered a broken arm and knee when he fell off of drywall stilts at a construction site. Because he admitted smoking marijuana and taking methamphetamine the weekend before the accident and failed to prove that his drug use did not contribute to his injuries, the Arizona Industrial Commission, applying A.R.S. ' 23-1021(D), denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits. However, the court of appeals reversed, finding that this statutory provision was unconstitutional in that it added a restriction on the benefits guaranteed by Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona constitution. The plaintiff in the Komalestewa case was injured when his arm was caught in a conveyor belt. Even though witnesses testified that Komalestewa did not appear intoxicated on the morning of the accident, blood tests taken at the hospital afterwards indicated that he had alcohol in his blood, and he admitted to ingesting four mixed drinks on the night before the accident. Therefore, pursuant to A.R.S. ' 23-1021(C), the Arizona Industrial Commission denied Komalestewa workers' compensation. However, on appeal, a different panel of the appeals court than that which reasoned in the Grammatico decision, affirmed the Industrial Commission's decision. The cases were consolidated for review when appeals were made from both decisions to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The Arizona Supreme Court found that the two statutory sections at issue violated Article 18, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution in that “if alcohol or drug use contributed even slightly to the accident” these statutes denied compensation “even if a necessary risk or danger of employment partially or substantially caused or contributed to the accident.” The Supreme Court determined that Article 18, Section 8 did not allow the legislature “to limit legal causation in that manner.” While the Court indicated there were powerful public policy considerations at work behind the two statutory provisions, namely, banning the use of controlled substances at the workplace, it acknowledged the need to refrain from effectively changing the state constitution to deny workers' compensation where employees fail a drug or alcohol test, even while their injuries were caused wholly or partially by necessary employment risks or dangers. Thus, the appeals court decision in Grammatico was upheld and that in Komalestewa was affirmed accordingly.