Las Vegas Sun

December 5, 2009

Currently: 38° | Complete forecast | Log in

Supreme Court rules for injured electrician

Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 | 10:28 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Las Vegas electrician was entitled to workers' compensation benefits when he was injured, even though he tested positive for marijuana at the time of the accident.

The court said John Chalue presented enough proof that he was not under the influence of the drug when he fell from an 8-foot ladder onto a concrete floor, suffering head, wrists and shoulder injuries.

Nevada law says if a worker has marijuana in his system when injured, then the drug is presumed to have caused the accident unless proven otherwise.

Chalue was employed by Mojave Electric adjusting light fixtures at a construction site when the accident occurred. He was taken to University Medical Center for treatment, where the attending physician noted that Chalue did not appear under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance.

Chalue's supervisor also said the employee did not appear to be under the influence when he reported for work and at the time of the accident. Chalue testified he accidentally ingested marijuana in some brownies he ate the preceding week.

Some experts maintain marijuana tests will show positive for several weeks after the drug has been consumed. Chalue testified he did not use drugs habitually.

Construction Industry Workers Compensation Group, in behalf of Mojave Electric, denied the claim.

A state hearing officer upheld Construction Industry but an appeals officer found that Chalue had presented enough evidence to overcome the presumption that he was under the influence of the drug. District Judge Allan Earl upheld the finding.

The Supreme Court said Chalue's evidence was enough to rebut the presumption that marijuana caused the accident.

The court also rejected Construction Industry's claim that expert medical testimony should be required to overcome the presumption. The court said the law requires only a "preponderance of the evidence" to rebut the presumption that marijuana caused the accident and expert testimony is not required.

archive

  • Most Read
  • Discussed
  • Most E-mailed

Calendar »

  • 5 Sat
  • 6 Sun
  • 7 Mon
  • 8 Tue
  • 9 Wed