Marijuana Use Does Not Rule Out Workers Compensation Benefits
The Supreme Court of Montana received a workers compensation benefits appeal pertaining to a worker being injured by bears. One of the main issues in the appeal was whether the worker was entitled to workers comp (WC) benefits since he was injured after smoking marijuana. This case is Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2011 WL 1002746 ( Mont. ).
Kilpatrick appealed the decision of the state workers compensation court that concluded that Hopkins was employed by Kilpatrick and was acting in the course and scope of employment at the time of his injuries. Hopkins worked at a nature park owned and operated by Kilpatrick and one of his tasks over the years was to feed the bears. In November, 2007, Hopkins traveled to work at the park and on the way, he smoked marijuana. After he got to work, Hopkins entered the bears' pen and began to place food out. He was attacked by two bears and suffered severe injuries.
Kilpatrick did not carry workers compensation insurance. Hopkins petitioned the state workers comp court for WC benefits from the uninsured employers' fund. Both the fund and Kilpatrick opposed Hopkins' petition. The comp court ruled in favor of Hopkins and the ruling was appealed. Kilpatrick raised four issues on appeal: whether Hopkins was employed by Kilpatrick at the time of the accident; whether Hopkins was in the course and scope of employment at the time of his injuries; whether marijuana use was the major contributing cause of the injuries; and whether Hopkins was performing service for Kilpatrick in return for aid or sustenance only.
The Supreme Court of Montana, after reviewing the facts of the case concluded that Kilpatrick unquestionably controlled the details of Hopkins' work at the park. Hopkins had worked at the park since 2002, received regular payments from Kilpatrick, and engaged in tasks at Kilpatrick's command; Hopkins was definitely employed by Kilpatrick.
As to whether Hopkins was in the scope and course of employment at the time of his injuries, the court considered four factors in its analysis: whether the activity was undertaken at the employer's request; whether the employer directly or indirectly compelled the employee's attendance at the activity; whether the employer controlled or participated in the activity; and whether the employer and the employee mutually benefited from the activity. After again reviewing the facts, the court said that Kilpatrick compelled Hopkins to work at the park, feeding the bears was one of Hopkins' regular employment duties, feeding the bears was not a personal activity severed from the employment-related duties at the park, and Kilpatrick benefitted from the care and feeding of the bears since presumably, customers would not be willing to pay cash to see dead or emaciated bears. Hopkins was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injuries.
The court then addressed the use of marijuana by Hopkins. The court said that non-prescription drug consumption will preclude an injured employee's benefits if consumption was the leading cause contributing to the result, when compared to all others. No evidence was presented here regarding Hopkins' level of impairment and the court found that bears are equal opportunity maulers without regard to marijuana consumption. So, the use of marijuana was not the major contributing cause of Hopkins' injuries.
The last appeal issue was whether Hopkins' services were in exchange for aid or sustenance only; if this were shown to be true, such employment is not covered by the state WC law. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the workers compensation court that found that Kilpatrick's testimony that he gave money to Hopkins not as wages, but rather out of his heart, to be without any credibility. The Supreme Court said that the trier of fact is in the best position to weigh the credibility of witnesses, so the court agreed with the trial court.
For these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of the workers compensation court and said Hopkins was entitled to WC benefits.
Editor's Note: Standing alone, alcohol or drug consumption is not typically sufficient to defeat recovery of workers compensation benefits if the user is injured at work. However, individual states may have statutory standards establishing when drug or alcohol use does preclude the receipt of WC benefits. In this instance, the Montana Supreme Court found that while drug consumption may preclude WC benefits if it is the leading cause contributing to the injury, there was no evidence to show that Hopkins' use of marijuana was such a major contributing cause of his injuries. As the court noted, bears are equal opportunity maulers and while Hopkins' actions may have been “mind-bogglingly stupid” (the court's words), the bears did not attack because of the marijuana use by Hopkins. Hopkins was injured in the course of his employment and was entitled to WC benefits.