Jump to content


Photo

what is the level of impaerment considered for the workplace asto thc in your system


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 sargeant2461

sargeant2461

    New Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:48 AM

i was injured on the job , fell 33 feet through an elavator shat. i crushed my back and cracked my head ,was lucky to syrvive now workmans comp is having a fit becauase thc came up in my blood from the accident . i do smoke somtimes on the weekends but not at work. it was 5 days since i had smoked when the accident happened ,so what is considered impaired?

#2 Guest_FindLaw_Amir_*

Guest_FindLaw_Amir_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:03 AM

Could you please elaborate a bit more on your post regarding your legal issue?

#3 pg1067

pg1067

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,542 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:24 AM

I don't really understand your question. The issue will be whether your illegal drug use contributed to occurrence of the accident. That may require expert testimony and an evidentiary hearing. This is one of those things that the "hey lighten up it's just a little pot" crowd tend not to consider. I suggest you consult with a workers' compensation attorney.

#4 moose5183

moose5183

    New Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:39 AM

I understand exactly what the claimant is saying. I just wonder if any such claimed "expert testimony" on the issue of nexus between "impairment" and the levels of any drug in one's system isn't deemed "junk science" in your particular jurisdiction. It works for alchohol, of course, but actual blood levels for other substances are not so easily understood. I am unaware of any alcohol-like levels applicable to non-alchoolic substances.

The claimant should indeed consult a lawyer who in turn should consult Daubert (assuming it applies in your state).

Otherwise, file a motion in limine at the time of trial and move to strike such evidence as scandalous and impertient and make the defense move to admit such alleged "scientific" testimony.

#5 LegalwriterOne

LegalwriterOne

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,635 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:37 AM

The evidence of THC in the blood is relevant, not "scandalous" or "impertinent." Expert testimony regarding the fact that THC doesn't remain in the blood nor come up on a blood test unless there has been very, very recent use is admissible. THC will show in urine for months but not blood.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users