Worker Intoxication Doesn’t Exempt Employers From Reporting Injuries
By: Gloria Gonzalez (Business Insurance) May 2016
Employers are not exempt from federal requirements to record workplace safety injuries and illnesses involving intoxicated workers, even if post-accident testing reveals the employee was drunk at the time of the incident.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently issued an interpretation letter in response to a December 2015 inquiry outlining a scenario in which an employee sustained a hand injury, received treatment and was immediately given a drug test — the results of which indicated the employee was intoxicated by alcohol.
The inquiry asked whether the injury must be recorded in an employer’s OSHA injury and illness logs or if it met a regulatory exemption for not recording self-inflicted injuries, given that the employee was self-medicating due to his nonwork-related alcoholism. OSHA’s answer was no, citing their physicians’ conclusion that the intake of alcohol does not treat the disorder but is a manifestation of the employee’s alcoholism.
“It continues to signal that there are very limited circumstances where a work-related injury will be exempt from recordkeeping,” said Tressi Cordaro, a shareholder with Jackson Lewis P.C. based in Reston, Virginia. “The agency’s answer doesn’t surprise me.”
The fact that the employee is intoxicated or drugged does not release employers from their recording obligations if the injury is otherwise recordable because it is work-related, said Douglas Crim, principal with Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone P.L.C. in Lansing, Michigan.
“This is not OSHA finding that the employer is guilty of a violation of a standard,” he said. “If a citation were to be issued, I would suggest the employer would have to pursue an employee misconduct defense. For an employer to do that, they have to have policies and rules in place that prohibit drinking on the job, taking drugs on the job.”
However, OSHA’s response “muddies the waters” because recording of a work-related injury normally means the employer potentially had some responsibility, but that may not be the case for employers with good, well-supervised drug and alcohol programs and testing, said Patrick Joyce, Chicago-based associate attorney with Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P.
These interpretation letters put employers on notice about the position OSHA will take in interpreting its rules and during potential litigation, Ms. Cordaro said. “While OSHA calls them guidance, they can have a binding legal effect,” she said.
The letter comes in the broader context of OSHA’s concerns about post-accident drug and alcohol testing potentially discouraging employees from reporting injuries and illnesses and employers’ legitimate interest in implementing testing as part of an overall drug and alcohol policy, experts said.
“There’s some friction there,” Mr. Crim said. “I don’t know why OSHA would be against testing employees after they have an accident. The only reason I can think of is that if an employee was intoxicated or under the influence, it would probably make them reluctant to report an injury, but that’s not a good reason not to have tests after an accident. I would be against the idea of having some prohibition against employers testing after accidents.”
OSHA’s position is still vague even with the interpretation letter, said Wes Scott, director of consulting services at the National Safety Council in Itasca, Illinois.
“OSHA wants to give guidance, but at the end of the day there are limits to what they have power over,” he said. “If there was any more clearer guidance that would support the need to do random drug testing and post-incident testing … unions find that a difficult pill to swallow and would not support that just because of the perceived abuses that could happen.”
Categories
- Benefits Resources
- Bonding
- BOP
- Business Insurance
- Commercial Auto
- Commercial Property
- Company News
- Construction
- Crime Insurance
- Cyber Insurance
- Directors & Officers
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Practice Liability Insurance
- Entertainment
- General Liability
- Health Insurance
- Healthcare
- Healthcare Reform
- Homeowners Insurance
- Hospitality
- Manufacturing
- Medical Malpractice
- Mining & Energy
- Nightclubs
- Personal Auto
- Personal Insurance
- Professional
- Restaurants
- Retail & Wholesale
- Risk Management Resources
- Safety Topics
- SBA Bonds
- Security
- Seminars
- Technology
- Tourism
- Transportation
- Uncategorized
- Workers Compensation
Archives
- May 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- November 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- February 2013
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- April 2010
- February 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- November 2008
- August 2008