Has THC sent Framer's claim to the smoke in Blood House Framer?

What do you think?

The use of an illegal drug can easily put an end to the compensation claim of an employee if there is indications that the drug has played a role in the injury. If the blood of an employee of an employee in the blood is in Mississippi at the time of the accident, this employee has a difficult burden if he hopes to ensure services. He has to prove that the drug has not contributed to the accident.

In one case, a housewife nailed wood when he fell through a gap in the roof. The gap was two feet four feet – the type of hole that is difficult to fall according to a superior because you could lay out your arms and catch the rafters before falling through all the way. Nevertheless, the supervisor said, the Framer did not appear under the influence when he was lying on the ground and called an ambulance.

In the same afternoon in the hospital, a blood test THC found the employee system. After the Framer it had nothing to do with his fall. After all, he hadn't smoked it for at least two weeks. He explained that he took it for PTSD in relation to his time in the military and because he was stressed out because of a hearing to support children to take place after the accident.

The supervisor also said that he was on the road during lunch and did not see the Framer during this time what was shortly before the fall. But the Framer contested smoking marijuana during lunch.

The company denied the claim that THC, illegally in Mississippi, contributed to the injury.

Mississippi's law stipulates that a worker is not entitled to compensation if the use of illegal drugs has caused the accident. If the employee testifies positively on the presence at the time of the injury on illegally consumed drug, it is assumed that the medication caused the injury. If this is the case, the violation cannot be compensated for unless the employee proves that the medication has not played a role in the injury.

---

Were the injuries to the framer compensated for?

A. No. The framer's arguments that he was not affected by THC at the time of autumn were only speculation; He did not provide hard evidence.

B. yes. Nobody saw him smoking marijuana.

---

If you have selected A, they voted the court in Ladner against Hinton Homes, LLC, No. 2024 toilet-00941-CoA (Miss. Ct. App.

Further dishes and compliance information from all over the country can be found under research

The court pointed out that the employee was tested positively for THC on the same day of the accident, which is illegal in Mississippi. While he claimed that he had not smoked marijuana for weeks, he also said that the support of children was stressed out and was one of the reasons why he smoked it. This hearing was still pending at the time of the accident, which indicates that it could continue to smoke it for the same reason. In addition, the supervisor did not watch him during lunch and left the possibility that the Framer smoked during this time before he went back to the roof and fell.

In addition, the size of the hole through which it fell to the point that it might have been affected by THC to the point that he could not prevent it from falling through the problem.

While the supervisor did not believe that the Framer was under the influence, the manager was involved in an emergency situation and could hardly have been expected to have clear observations on this topic.

After all, the framer's statements that the THC did not cause the fall in its system were only speculative. He did not provide any specific evidence to overcome the assumption that the medication caused the injury.

The Court confirmed the refusal of the lawsuit.