10.25c. Chemical Tests.

• Court: Kansas

Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 10.25c. Chemical Tests SummariesChapter 1010.25c Chemical TestsNovember 2003. (PH) Probable cause to believe an employee used, possessed or was impaired by alcohol or drugs is established when a claimant is seen speeding and driving erratically immediately before being involved in an automobile accident. Thus probable cause allows for the admission of the blood tests performed at the hospital where claimant was treated. Also significant is the fact the Trooper who investigated the accident provided claimant with the consent advisory statements before the tests were administered. Meredith v. Francis Casing Crew, Inc., Docket No. 1,004,553. October 1999. (Award) Before drug screen results can be admitted in evidence, the employer must prove: (1) it had probable cause to believe the employee had used or was impaired by a drug; (2) the test sample was collected contemporaneously with the events establishing probable cause; (3) a licensed health care professional collected and labeled the test sample; (4) the test was performed by an approved or licensed lab; (5) the test was confirmed by a reliable analytical method; and (6) the test results were beyond a reasonable doubt taken from the employee. Bohannon v. Dynamic Drywall, Docket No. 230,500. ----- Results of drug test are not admissible in evidence unless there was probable cause to believe the employee had used or was impaired by drugs. Probable cause exists when there is sufficient information to form a reasonable belief that an employee had either used drugs or that the employee was impaired from drugs. Id. See Also, Val D. Carlow vs. Konza Construction Company, Inc., Docket No. 227,051 (April 2000) [Affirmed by unpublished Court of Appeals opinion, Docket No. 85,275, February 9, 2001. Motion for review denied on May 1, 2001 by the Kansas Supreme Court.]. April 1999. (Ph) Claimant was injured in an automobile accident which killed a passenger in the truck claimant was driving. Respondent argued the accident occurred as a result of claimant's cocaine use and obtained authorization from claimant, within 27 hours of the accident, to test claimant for cocaine. K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 44-501(d)(2) sets out specific criteria which must be followed before chemical tests can be admitted into evidence. Respondent provided several...