Grammatico v. Industrial Commission, Arizona Supreme Court, No. CV-04-0197-PR, August 10, 2005

Grammatico v. Industrial Commission, Arizona Supreme Court, No. CV-04-0197-PR, August 10, 2005

Decision: The Arizona Supreme Court declared a portion of Arizona’s workers’ compensation law to be invalid, holding that it violated the Arizona Constitution. The sections declared invalid are A.R.S. §23-1021 (C) and (D), which provide that a work-related injury is not compensable if it was caused in part by the employee’s impairment from drugs or alcohol; and for refusal of worker’s comp benefits to injured employees who refuse to take a drug or alcohol test, or who fail a test.

This case was combined and decided along with a companion case involving the same issue, Komalestewa v. Industrial Commission, No. CV-04-0364-PR.

David Grammatico installed metal trim on building exteriors for his employer. He performed his work on drywall stilts approximately 42 inches in height. After working most of his shift in stilts, he fell while walking on the stilts through a cluttered area. He broke his right wrist and left knee. A post-accident drug test yielded positive results for marijuana, amphetamine, and methamphetamine. He admitted using marijuana and methamphetamine on the previous two days, during which he was not scheduled to work. His employer’s insurer denied him workers’ compensation benefits based on A.R.S. §23-1021(D). That statute provides that if an employer maintains a certified drug testing policy under that statute, an employee’s injury is not compensable if the employee fails to pass a drug test, unless the employee proves the use of the unlawful substance was not a contributing cause of injury. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Grammatico had failed to prove his drug use was not a contributing cause. Upon appeal, the state appellate court found in favor of Grammatico, and held the workers’ comp law to be unconstitutional.

Austin Komalestewa worked for a different employer. While trying to fix a conveyor belt, his arm became caught in it, resulting in serious injury. A post-accident drug test revealed alcohol in his blood, and he was denied workers’ compensation benefits under the same statute. During his hearing, he admitted to having four mixed drinks containing vodka the night before, but a number of people testified that he did not appear intoxicated the morning of the accident. His claim was denied by the ALJ, and a different panel of judges from the state appellate court upheld the employee’s denial of benefits.

With the appellate court issuing split decisions, the Arizona Supreme Court decided the matter in both cases. It held that Article 18 Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution established the workers’ compensation system, which was designed to be a no fault system — neither the employee’s nor employer’s negligence would affect compensation. According to the Supreme Court, an employee should only need to prove that a necessary risk or danger of employment caused or contributed to the accident in whole or in part. By requiring the employee to prove he was not at fault in an accident (by his use of drugs or alcohol), the statute put an impermissible burden on employees the Constitution did not intend when it created the “no fault” system. The law was held to be unconstitutional and invalid.

NOTE: Watch for new bills to be introduced from the Arizona legislature on this matter. (9/2/05)