Post Accident Drug Testing

hhaynal · February 2005

Thought I would open up another thread after reading through the comments on the previously posted Drug Testing topic.

Many of the posters indicated they tested post accident. Discussion at our site whether to test post accident has been very combative. I'd like to open this topic up to the Forum to get your opinions, pro and con, why post accident testing should be included in a company's testing protocols.

What say ye?

Shadowfax · February 2005

I have never heard a rational argument for not doing it. It gives you an additional reason to get folks tested, and there is a statistically greater probability that drug users will have accidents. I'd be interested in who and what 'combative argument' makes you think twice.

Don D · February 2005

I agree with Shadow. What could possibly be an argument AGAINST post accident testing. It is not at all uncommon to have these employees test positive. I cannot imagine NOT doing it. It sends all the right messages in all the right directions. It sends a message to your workforce that you are interested in their safety and will not tolerate drug users working among them. It sends a message to your insurance company that you are committed to ferreting out drug use.

One spinoff that you will never really know for sure is that with all of your work-comp goof offs who are prone to seize opportunities to defraud the program, they will know for damned sure that if they claim a work injury, they WILL be tested. I project that there is a high incidence of these goof-offs who are prone to other activities, like smoking dope.

Oh, and one last thing. Imagine yourself in a courtroom following a fatal accident. The person who caused the accident that killed a co-worker was proven to have cannibis in her system. The family's attorney asks you why in the world you did not test the woman the LAST time she had a minor accident and went for treatment. Your response is going to be something like, "Ahh, well, my fellow managers and upper management got sorta combative when I suggested it."

Down_the_Middle · February 2005

We recently discontinued PA testing and while it took some time to effectively lobby for it I think it was right for us. We were historically testing for any reportable injury/accident and in healthcare we experience tons of needle stix and soft tissue lifting complaints. In a five (5) year period involving >600 "injuries", we never found a non-negative PA screen. I think our random and reasonable suspicion processes will suffice and at $25/pop, it permits us to use those financial resources somewhere else. I would expect other industries to view this differently, but it makes sense for us.

SMace · February 2005

Didn't anyone argue that your drug free policy was working? I hear what you are saying, but why dismantle something that is working?

lorrie · February 2005

We do post-accident testing as required by DOT (after a vehicle accident) but not for every injury accident. The $50 per each screen cost is why. If we send every employee who drops a pallet on their foot or some other minor injury then we would be spending a bundle.

I know there has to be a good way to clearly define the line of when we should do post-accident testing, but I'm not sure what it is.

safety · February 2005

[url]http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/drugs/said/StateLaws.asp[/url]

Lorrie, KS you may want to check this link because any positive post accident in KS releives you of WC responsibility.

mushroomHR · February 2005

We do post-accident drug testing--always have. In Ohio, "The burden of proof is on the employee to prove that the presence of alcohol or a controlled substance was not the proximate cause of the work-related injury. An employee who tests positive or refuses to submit to chemical testing may be disqualified for compensation and benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act." Check with your states BWC to see how they view PA testing.

pork1 · February 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 02-14-05 AT 11:36AM (CST)[/font][br][br]In our situation, we have grabbed a few tested individuals for drug use, and then shut off medical responsibility for the injury that resulted from drugs and/or alcohol abuse. The post accident alcohol one ended up with $275,ooo.oo medical bill for a severed arm and the loss of a wage earning capacity. The cost of medical attention for a W/C claim always has a potential for great amounts of medical care and long term disability. We terminate immediately for "being impaired while on duty" which is supported by drug and alcohol abuse documentation. We are also no longer responsible for the cost of rehab, once tested positive or the refusal to provide a urine sample for testing the opportunity to become rehired is cut off now and forever more.

2nd point that we bank on is the "deterrence factor", the work force understands we test and to some that is enough to stay away from the stuff in the first place. Your customers might also be effected if they know your Drug Free Work Place Program is alive and well!

Just my "pig" sense, but it works for us!

PORK

After reading all the posted information, I agree with all it "might or might not" make sense. We deal with many needle sticks and scapel cuts treated with first aid also, but we only do our post accident testing when medical attention requires the cost of more than $1.00. This means first aid was determined as insufficient for the treatment of the injury and we had to refer the employee to our retained physician. They know going in that the urine sample will be required! This deterrence helps to keep our cost down, "first aid works"!

hhaynal · February 2005

I honestly see both sides presented by everyone here. Our company took the position as downthemiddle. We do the random and for cause but have left the post accident alone. The major factor was subjecting an individual to a pee test by the on-site nurse practitioner for being plain clumsy; i.e. tripping over his/her own two feet walking across the parking lot, or like me, tripping up the steps to get into the building. It was argued that since an investigation ensues after every incident, testing for cause would achieve the same results instead of a strict post accident rule.

Thanks again for all your responses. Continues to give fodder for thought.

Shadowfax · February 2005

Just curious about your 'for cause' language, if it does not provide for post accident. Is your cause just behavior, observation and odor? If so, why is post accident not part of 'cause' testing?

pork1 · February 2005

HHAynal: Yes but it is those very simple things like tripping over one's own feet, that helps us get to the route of the accident being the ee was under the influence by some strange chemical, guess what we walk very well on our own two feet until there is four and we are not used to that so we trip and fall all over our "butts"!

Test them and it will be worth while even if you never catch a soul!

PORK

E Wart · February 2005

In TN and GA if you have a drug free workplace program that meets certain requirements, you can get a discount on your W/C premium. One of the requirements is the Post Accident testing. Also, in GA (and maybe in TN) they can deny the w/c claim and expenses if it comes out positive.
CO (I believe) w/c can only pay 50% if they want if positive drug screen.
I am of the opinion that of all the times to do the testing, this is it. I can see this much more than random. It is a safety and liability situation as well.
E Wart

CRS8383 · February 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 02-16-05 AT 09:34AM (CST)[/font][br][br]I would love to be able to test after each accident. Unfortunately, our state regs do not permit "blanket" post accident testing. They have a section for post accident testing, but it reads very similar to reasonable suspicion. So no "blanket" post accident testing for us, but I envy those you who can. I beleive it would do wonders for the reduction of fraudulent claims.

Edit: The state I was referring to is Oklahoma. I do not know why it posted GA next to my screen name.

lorrie · February 2005

I have also noticed that when I have previewed my response the system displays the state of the person I am responding to. But when it actually posts, it has the correct state.

Uncas · February 2005

We have a negotiated agreement on post accident testing in our CBA. Any employee involved in an accident is subject to testing. For the purpose of testing, accident is defined as any work related incident whose nature indicates impairment of ability or judgement or in which safety procedures are violated or careless acts were performed and which results in injuries to the employee, other employees or third parties or which results in property damage in excess of $500.00. This generally rules out the testing for simple accidents, such as tripping on stairs and such, but allows for testing where there is any suspicion of impairment. Works for us!

hhaynal · February 2005

I like this! This might work for a compromise for those here at our site objecting to the PA testing.

Thanks!

Post Accident Drug Testing

Comments