قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The magistrate was not wrong to reject drug testing

The magistrate was not wrong to reject drug testing



The doctoral test result of an injured worker was not an indication of his faculties at the time of his accident and correctly excluded, held a circuit court in a negligence target filed by the worker against several third parties.

In ] Hale v. Wood Group PSN Inc., a third-panel panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeal confirmed a $ 2.25 million jury award to an employee severely injured in a transfer between Ship.

Orvel Hale worked as an erosion and corrosion engineer for Oceaneering Inc., which required him to spend longer periods offshore access platforms via offshore supply vessels. Prior to his employment with Oceaneering, he had suffered a shoulder injury and was prescribed hydrocodone to handle pain. He was also a prescription for Adderall.

In 201

4, Hale was seriously injured during a passenger car transfer, where he was standing on a basket that was transferred from one ship to another when the basket knocked out equipment on deck that caused him to fall. He experienced significant damage to his back. A care after accident showed positive results for opiates and amphetamines.

Mr. Hale applied for negligence on the companies that owned the ships and transferred equipment. The case preceded a jury trial, which showed that the companies negligently caused his injuries and awarded Hale $ 2.25 million in general injuries. The companies appealed and argued that the judge condemned his discretion in excluding evidence of his drug test at the trial and that the general compensation price was excessive.

The companies claimed that the results of Hale's investigation and possession after accidents and use of prescription drugs were relevant. Experts on both sides agreed that the drug screening was not a reliable indicator of Hale's faculties at the time of the accident and because of the lack of causal link between Hale's medication use and his injuries, the judge decided that the evidence was "very precarious and lacking in serious evidence ".

The 5th Circuit Judges agreed that they did not find discrimination abuse by judges.

The companies also argued that the jury price was too large, but the Appellate Courts disagreed and argued that companies failed to meet the "demanding standard" to turn to a jury award.

Lawyers in the case did not immediately respond to requests for comments.

                    


Source link