resulting in a derailment of the engine he was working on. He told his supervisor that he felt that his blood sugar had dropped and that he was confused. Instead of sending him to the hospital for
medical treatment, the Employer required that he wait in the rail yard to get a drug and alcohol test. Te wait took five hours. He was then taken home in a company van, which took another five hours. On the way home, he was taken to an emergency room, where he was diagnosed with a stroke. The Plaintiff sued to assert, among
other things, that the Employer was negligent in not obtaining medical care as soon as possible. A jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $2,089,480 (reduced to $1,044,740— comparative negligence).
What would you do? 1. Are your management employees properly trained to handle reasonable suspicion?
2. Have you made appropriate arrange- ments with your service providers, or if you are a service provider, with your cus- tomers, regarding the timing of services? (How long will it be before a collector or breath-alcohol tester will arrive, etc.?)
Case #4. Stewart v. Snohomish County PUD NO. 19
($1,815,953.78)
For most of her adult life, Stewart has suffered from migraines. She has treated this condition with both non-narcotic and narcotic (Dilaudid or hydromorphone) medicines. Periodically, Stewart would need time off to treat this condition. Her
supervisors were concerned about her excessive absences. Te defendant (PUD) has a “fitness for duty” policy that prohibits employees from working “under the influence” of any drug or alcohol. In a meeting with two managers and
her union representative, Stewart was told that she was suspected of being “impaired” at work.10
She was asked
to submit to a reasonable-suspicion drug test. The test was positive for hydromorphone. The MRO also issued a “safety-sensitive warning.” Stewart was not in a safety-sensitive position. Stewart was asked to and did sign a
“Return to Work Agreement,” which in part indicated that she would be fired if she came to work impaired.11
Soon aſter returning
to work, she transferred to another office. Tere, the supervisor suspected her of
Professional Liability Insurance designed just for you.
The Professional Liability Insurance Program is endorsed by your Association, DATIA, and is specifically designed for drug and alcohol testing facilities. As a member of DATIA, you are eligible for a competitive quote from an agency with a knowledge of your special insurance needs.
Paula D. Layton 800-356-9804 | 110 Dixie Street, Carrollton, GA ©2018, McGriff Insurance Services, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.datia.org
datia focus
11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
