The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday reversed two Workers’ Compensation Commission decisions that denied benefits to two workers because they tested positive for marijuana after they were injured on the job.
In a 5-2 decision, the court found that Greg Prock and Matt Edmisten, who both live in Baxter County, were entitled to benefits because a review of the facts by “fair-minded persons” would show that the accident and injuries were caused by the men’s routine but unsafe manner of opening barrels with an acetylene torch.
Justice Paul Danielson wrote in the majority opinion in the Prock case that the man had overcome the presumption in state law that a person’s injuries were caused by drug use when he tests positive for illegal substances. The cases were remanded so the commission could award benefits.
“The ‘evidence’ to support the commission’s finding that the accident was substantially occasioned by intoxication is the mere speculation and conjecture that Prock was actually high on the day of the accident and that Prock had at some point been shown an alternative method for opening barrels. We cannot say that is substantial evidence, and we do not conclude that reasonable minds could reach the result found by the commission,” Danielson wrote.
Chief Justice Jim Hannah, Justice Donald Corbin, and Special Justices Judson Kidd and Tjuana Byrd joined Danielson in the majority. Justices Karen Baker and Courtney Hudson Goodson dissented.
Justices Jo Hart and Cliff Hoofman recused themselves from the case.
Prock and Edmisten were working on a houseboat at the Bull Shoals Marina on Nov. 1, 2007, when they were told to cut the tops off of two barrels to use them to burn Styrofoam.
The two men cut the top off of one of the barrels without incident, but when they cut into the second, which they thought was empty but actually contained gasoline, it exploded.
Both men were injured, with Prock receiving burns on 48 percent of his body.
After they were taken to the hospital, both men were given drug tests and tested positive for marijuana.
Both men applied for workers’ compensation benefits but were denied in December 2010.
The commission wrote in its opinion that the men failed to present evidence that their injuries were not “substantially occasioned by the use of drugs” and were therefore ineligible for benefits.
An attorney who represented both men in their appeals told the court in oral arguments last month that there was no indication that the men were intoxicated at the time of the accident.
Goodson wrote in a dissenting opinion that the majority’s decision “represents a significant departure from this court’s traditional review of workers’ compensation cases.”
Arkansas, Pages 13 on 02/28/2014