Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Recchi America established its drug and alcohol policy on April 1, 1991, nine months after the effective date of the workers' compensation drug-free workplace statutes, and three months after passage of the enabling division rules. See §§ 440.09(3), 440.09(7), 440.101, 440.102, Fla.Stat....

...resumption. Markham v. Fogg, 458 So.2d 1122, 1125 (Fla.1984); Bass v. General Dev. Corp., 374 So.2d 479, 484 (Fla.1979). As to the first prong of the due process test, the concern of the legislature regarding drug use in the workplace is reasonable. Section 440.101, Florida Statutes (1991), provides that "[i]t is the intent of the Legislature to promote drug-free workplaces in order that employers in the state be afforded the opportunity to maximize their levels of productivity, enhance their co...

...elays, and tragedies associated with work-related accidents resulting from drug abuse by employees." As to the *201 second prong of the due process test, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the statute would deter drug use in the workplace. Section 440.101 provides that it is "the intent of the Legislature that drug abuse be discouraged and that employees who choose to engage in drug abuse face the risk of unemployment and the forfeiture of workers' compensation benefits." The conclusiv...

...The workers' compensation drug-free workplace statutes are designed to accomplish twin goals: discouraging drug *202 abuse and maximizing industrial productivity by eliminating "the costs, delays, and tragedies associated with work-related accidents resulting from drug abuse by employees." § 440.101, Fla.Stat....

rule of the Governor and Cabinet. . . ." 8 Section 440.101(1), Fla. Stat. 9 Section 440.102(1)(h), Fla

...tivity, enhance their competitive positions in the marketplace, and reach their desired levels of success without experiencing the costs, delays, and tragedies associated with work-related accidents resulting from drug abuse by employees. Fla. Stat. § 440.101 ....

...1:12cv176-SPM/GR J, 2012 WL 4512908 , at *1 (N.D.Fla. Oct. 1, 2012) (“The [statute] does not expressly create a private cause of action against an employer who adopts the drug-free workplace program but then fails to follow its own procedures.”). And, while Section 440.101 does not expressly set forth any private cause of action, significantly, Section 112.0455 does....

compensation program described above. Pursuant to section 440.101, Florida Statutes, it was the intent of the

...Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College, 475 So.2d 1221, 1227 (Fla.1985)). Dispute Gives Rise To Charges PERC Dismisses The present ease arises out of the City’s efforts to assure city personnel “drug-free workplaces.” Sections 440.101 and 440.102, Florida Statutes (1995), were enacted “to promote drug-free workplaces.” § 440.101(1), Fla....

...ding No. CA-96-020, alleging that the City breached its duty to bargain in good faith, in violation of section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1995), by imposing contract language which abrogated employees’ statutory rights under sections 440.101 and 440.102, Florida Statutes (1995); and, in No....

...The claimant sought temporary total disability from February 5 through February 25,1993, and payment of past medical expenses. The E/C defended on the ground that the employer had implemented a drug-free workplace program and all benefits were barred pursuant to section 440.101, Florida Statutes (1991), or, in the alternative, the accident was primarily occasioned by drug use and therefore not compensable pursuant to section 440.09(3), Florida Statutes (1991). Section 440.101 sets forth the legislative intent regarding drug-free workplaces: ......

...... (Emphasis added). The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) correctly determined that the employer’s drug-free workplace program did not satisfy the requirements of section 440.102, Florida Statutes (1991), and that denial of benefits pursuant to section 440.101 was therefore impermissible....

...hat the drug contributed to the injury. This finding is supported by the record. The JCC determined that “compensation” was accordingly denied, but noted that the question of what constitutes “compensation” had to be addressed because unlike section 440.101, section 440.09(3) did not provide that both “medical and indemnity” benefits should be denied....

...The JCC noted that the definition of “compensation” in section 440.02(6) did not mention medical benefits. The JCC concluded that if the legislature had intended that both medical and “indemnity” benefits be denied under section 440.09(3), the legislature could have used the same terminology used in section 440.101....

...We also note that throughout the Act, the legislature generally refers to compensation for disability or compensation for death when a limited or narrow construction of “compensation” is intended. The JCC’s rebanee on the fact that the legislature referred to “medical and indemnity benefits” in section 440.101, while referring to “compensation” in section 440.09, appears to be unwarranted. Within section 440.101, the legislature first refers to forfeiture of “compensation benefits” and subsequently refers to forfeiture of “medical and indemnity benefits.” Additionally, there is no other statutory provision defining or providing “indemnity” benefits....

VAN NORTWICK, J. Lisa Van Duyn appeals a worker’s compensation order ruling that she is not entitled to benefits because she refused a drug test. She argues that the statutory forfeiture of benefits in section 440.101(2), Florida Statutes (1997), is not applicable because the clinic collecting the urine sample for the drug test did not give her an opportunity to be retested within 24 hours as required by the applicable administrative rule....

...of custody form acknowledging she refused to provide a useable sample. It is not disputed in this appeal that Van Duyn’s employer, Truck Driver Services, Inc., had a “Drug Free Workplace” program in place at the time of Van Duyn’s accident. Section 440.101(2), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that [i]f an employer implements a drug-free workplace program in accordance with [statutory law] ..., the employer may require the employee to submit to a test for the presence of drugs or alcoho...

...and, if an injured employee refuses to submit to a test for drugs or alcohol, the employee forfeits eligibility for medical and indemnity benefits. (Italics added). The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) held Van Duyn was ineligible for worker’s compensation benefits on the authority of section 440.101(2) after finding she refused “a validly and legally requested drug test.” Van Duyn challenges that ruling, arguing, as she did below, that, pursuant to rule 59A-24.005(3)(c)8.a, Florida Administrative Code, the walk-in clinic should have allowed her the opportunity to return within 24 hours to give a second sample. Because she was not permitted to return to give a second sample at a later time, Van Duyn submits that the bar to benefits in section 440.101(2) does not apply....

...ond sample. Given the facts of this case, therefore, Van Duyn cannot claim that she was denied an opportunity, pursuant to rule 59A-24.005(3)(c)8, to give another sample. Moreover, we reject Van Duyn’s argument that the bar to benefits provided in section 440.101(2) does not apply because the walk-in clinic employee who handled Van Duyn’s urine sample failed to record the temperature on the chain of custody *1110 form....

the statutory employer of Duran pursuant to section 440.101 and therefore immune from suit pursuant to