Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [05/04/10] 2010 MTWCC 9 Although Petitioner admitted smoking marijuana before arriving at work on the morning of the bear attack, the Court concluded that nonprescription drug use was not the major contributing cause of the incident. When it comes to attacking humans, bears are equal opportunity maulers, attacking without regard to race, creed, ethnicity, or marijuana usage.
Heth v. Montana State Fund [04/25/08] 2008 MTWCC 19 Although the Court determined that alcohol was the major contributing cause of Petitioner’s industrial accident, under § 39-71-407(4), MCA, if the employer had knowledge of the employee’s use of alcohol and failed to attempt to stop the employee from using alcohol, the subsection barring recovery does not apply. Where the evidence presented was that Petitioner’s employer knew he consumed alcohol on the job, that he had urged Petitioner to moderate his on-the-job drinking and had directed him to place his empty cans in a sack rather than allow them to be loose in the vehicle, and where the last time Petitioner’s employer saw him on the night before the accident, Petitioner was getting into his work vehicle with a six-pack of beer, the Court concluded that Petitioner’s employer had knowledge of Petitioner’s use of alcohol and failed to attempt to stop him from using it. Therefore, Petitioner is not barred from recovery of benefits under § 39-71-407(4), MCA.
Heth v. Montana State Fund [04/25/08] 2008 MTWCC 19 Where Petitioner’s BAC was measured at .0874 some time after the accident and which was computed by an expert witness to have been .10 or .11 at the time of the accident, although the parties made arguments as to whether the septic pumper truck Petitioner was driving was a commercial vehicle, the Court made no determination as to its status. The fact remained that Petitioner’s BAC was over the .08 rebuttable inference of intoxication for a non-commercial vehicle under § 61-8-401(4)(c), MCA.
|Van Vleet v. Montana Assoc. of Counties Workers' Comp. Trust [2/19/04] 2004 MTWCC 8 Where an employer was aware of and did not attempt to stop alcohol use by an employee, intoxication does not bar a claim for compensation so long as the employee was otherwise in the course and scope of employment. Reversed on other grounds in Van Vleet v. Montana Association of Counties Workers' Compensation Trust, 2004 MT 367 (No. 04-206)|
|Van Vleet v. Montana Assoc. of Counties Workers' Comp. Trust [2/19/04] 2004 MTWCC 8 Where a substantial cause of the claimant's injury or death is alcohol intoxication, a claim for benefits is barred by section 39-71-407(4), MCA (1999), unless the employer was aware that the claimant was using alcohol or drugs and failed to attempt to stop the use. Reversed on other grounds in Van Vleet v. Montana Association of Counties Workers' Compensation Trust, 2004 MT 367 (No. 04-206)|
Thoreson v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [6/28/00] 2000 MTWCC 40
Based on claimant's smoking the equivalent of three marijuana joints
within a couple of hours of going on a roof to work, and his bizarre,
reckless conduct of walking along the very edge of the roof like a tightrope
walker, claimant was in fact intoxicated and the intoxication was a
leading cause of his accident and injury within 39-71-407, MCA (1995).
However, employer did have knowledge of claimant's drug use and failed
to attempt to stop same, making claimant entitled to benefits. Affirmed
in nonciteable decision 2002 MT