In American Interstate Ins. Co. v. Hinson, No 09-04-369 CV, 2005 WL 1903757 (Tex. App. – Beaumont), a Texas appeals court affirmed a jury's ruling that a worker was not intoxicated at the time of his injury.

 

William Hinson fell from a steel structure while employed by Constructors and Erectors. Hinson was a regular marijuana user and admitted to using on the weekend before his accident.

 

American Interstate, the workers compensation insurer, called Dr. Thomas Kurt as an expert witness in the trial, who said that Hinson was intoxicated at the time of the injury based on urinalysis of a urine sample taken within a few hours of the accident. American Interstate claimed that his testimony was conclusive that Hinson was intoxicated at the time of his injury.

 

The court said, “In cases involving marijuana or controlled substances, there is no per se level or test defined by the statute [Labor Code] that establishes when a person is intoxicated. The statutory standard for marijuana is relatively subjective because intoxication is defined as 'not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties' because of one's voluntarily using marijuana.”

 

Thus, the issue was not the presence of marijuana in the worker's body or whether a lab test showed marijuana in a urine sample after the accident, but rather the issue, as identified by the court, was whether the worker was intoxicated. Dr. Kurt acknowledged that Hinson was not under any physical effect and that his mental status due to marijuana was subtle. Hinson testified that he felt normal and did not feel impaired when the accident occurred.

 

The court concluded that “a reasonable jury could have reasonably disregarded Dr. Kurt's testimony and his urinalysis test result in reaching its conclusion that Hinson was not intoxicated at the time of his injury” and affirmed the jury's finding and the trial court's verdict that Hinson was not intoxicated.