Bills would deny workers benefits if drugs, alcohol involved

State lawmakers have given preliminary approval to a measure denying workers’ compensation benefits to employees injured or killed on the job who test positive for alcohol or illegal drugs.

The bills, HCR2004 and HB2111, say in essence that workers who have drugs or alcohol in their system are presumed to have caused their own injury.

That would make them ineligible for benefits unless the employee or survivors prove after the accident that drug or alcohol use was “not a substantial cause’’ of the injury or death.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. John McComish, R-Phoenix, is backed by employer groups who say the risk of being denied benefits will help convince workers to come to the job straight and sober.

They also said the legislation would encourage more companies to regularly test workers.

Only employers that have certified testing policies would get the presumption that a worker who tests positive is ineligible for benefits.

For other companies, the employer would have to prove that drugs or alcohol substantially contributed to a worker’s injury or death to escape paying benefits.

But Rep. Meg Burton Cahill, D-Tempe, said during the debate that the proposal, up for a final vote next week, is bad public policy. She said if workers’ compensation does not pay for the employee’s injury, those medical costs could end up being borne by all taxpayers.

The workers’ compensation system approved by voters in 1925 is no-fault insurance: Workers injured in a jobrelated accident are entitled to have their medical bills paid automatically.

And if they are out of work or disabled, they are entitled to some percentage of their salary.

In exchange, workers give up their right to sue their employers, even if the company’s practices were negligent and dangerous.

A 1996 law created the exception for drug and alcohol use. But the state Supreme Court voided that law last year, saying the state constitution bars legislators from requiring employees to prove they were not at fault when an accident occurred.

In that case, the employee later admitted he smoked marijuana and snorted amphetamines during the two weekend days before. A urine sample tested positive for metabolites of marijuana, amphetamines and methamphetamine.

But the justices also said the “necessary risks and dangers’’ of the employee’s job could have partially caused or contributed to his injury. They said it would be unfair — and illegal — to deny benefits solely based on the positive drug test.

Attorney Brian Clymer said the latest measure would put an undue legal burden on employees to prove that somehow the fact they had drugs or alcohol in their system did not contribute to their injuries. He said the situation is especially difficult with drugs.

With alcohol, for example, a specific blood level shows the person’s level of intoxication.

By contrast, the metabolites of marijuana and some other drugs remain in the system — and show up on drug tests — long after the person has used the drugs and long after there is any impairment.