Forced to file workers comp and then drug tested

[imcasual]

What is the name of your state? Arizona. I was travelling on business and sprained my ankle. I had planned to just treat it myself, ice, ibuprofen, elevation, but my employer said I was required to see the workers comp facility they contract with. I returned late on Thursday and went to their doctor on Friday morning. I was surprised UA'd 4 1/2 days after the accident. That particular day I was also on vacation NOT on company time. Additionally I lost no time due to the accident as I was okay'd by my doctor and my supervisor to work the following week from home. I was called into HR today and told the lab which is in ARKANSAS found evidence of illegal drugs in the specimen and their practice is to retest the SAME SPECIMEN. That's ridiculous. They should retest me. I feel as though I have been railroaded into this entire process. What recourse do I have? Do I need a lawyer? I'm a divorced, middle-aged professional woman. I canNOT afford to lose my income.

 

[cbg]

If you were traveling on business then it was correct to require the claim to go through workers comp.

What does the fact that the lab is in Arkansas have to do with it?

Retesting the same speciman is common since several days after the fact, any drugs that may have initially been there may have been filtered out of your system. If you were not taking any drugs you are actually better served by retesting the same specimen - it's better proof in your favor if the retest comes up negative.

 

[lya]

If you were traveling on business then it was correct to require the claim to go through workers comp.

What does the fact that the lab is in Arkansas have to do with it?

Retesting the same speciman is common since several days after the fact, any drugs that may have initially been there may have been filtered out of your system. If you were not taking any drugs you are actually better served by retesting the same specimen - it's better proof in your favor if the retest comes up negative.

Are you saying if I pee in a cup today and today it tests positive for THC, that retesting the same pee from the same cup may test negative for THC or is "retesting the same specimen" a corporate slang for retesting the employee via a freshly voided urine sample?

I think the OP, who purposely stated she was on vacation and not on "company time" is saying the test on the specimen provided was accurate and she would prefer to provide another sample as it would most likely test negative. Of course, that would depend on how far back the testing goes.

Not arguing with you; please know that.

 

[moburkes]

Yes, OP is saying that he used illegal drugs on his own time, and, because of the ankle sprain, has been caught. Drugs are illegal on your own time or work time.

 

[racer72]

Yes, OP is saying that he used illegal drugs on his own time, and, because of the ankle sprain, has been caught. Drugs are illegal on your own time or work time.

Don't let her hit you with her purse.

I'm a divorced, middle-aged professional woman.

 

[moburkes]

Don't let her hit you with her purse.

Not THAT would also be illegal. OP is in enough trouble as it is!

 

[fairisfair]

Are you saying if I pee in a cup today and today it tests positive for THC, that retesting the same pee from the same cup may test negative for THC or is "retesting the same specimen" a corporate slang for retesting the employee via a freshly voided urine sample?

I think the OP, who purposely stated she was on vacation and not on "company time" is saying the test on the specimen provided was accurate and she would prefer to provide another sample as it would most likely test negative. Of course, that would depend on how far back the testing goes.

Not arguing with you; please know that.

no what she is saying is that it is common practice to retest the SAME sample to ensure that the positive test is in fact correct. It would do no good to test a new sample, that would merely prove that the candidate had no drugs in their system at that time.

As Moburkes pointed out, doing drugs is illegal, and the company has the right to subject an employee to drug testing. Look for another job OP.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

I had a coworker who, rumor has it, successfully fought a positive THC result indicating low levels by stating her positive drug test was the due to second hand smoke. I knew she did get hurt on the job and would have been tested. Something did occur that caused a minor shakeup. The drug policy in the employee handbook was clarified. But then again, that's how all good urban legends start.

 

[lya]

no what she is saying is that it is common practice to retest the SAME sample to ensure that the positive test is in fact correct. It would do no good to test a new sample, that would merely prove that the candidate had no drugs in their system at that time.

As Moburkes pointed out, doing drugs is illegal, and the company has the right to subject an employee to drug testing. Look for another job OP.

That's what I thought; you just never know what new jargon is out there.

 

[Indiana Filer]

I had a coworker who, rumor has it, successfully fought a positive THC result indicating low levels by stating her positive drug test was the due to second hand smoke. I knew she did get hurt on the job and would have been tested. Something did occur that caused a minor shakeup. The drug policy in the employee handbook was clarified. But then again, that's how all good urban legends start.

For a UDS to come up positive for THC from second hand smoke, the person providing the urine sample would have had to have spent hours and hours in a room so full of marijuana smoke that she wouldn't have been able to see her hand in front of her face. It's just not gonna happen.

We get clients all the time that tell us that they weren't smoking. They were just in the same room with someone else while the someone else was smoking. Even if that were true, our probation orders say that "You shall not consume any alcoholic beverage or controlled substance unless prescribed by a duly licensed physician. You shall not associate with anyone to be involved in those activities." Just being around someone using is a violation. (I'm a probation officer.)

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

We get clients all the time that tell us that they weren't smoking. They were just in the same room with someone else while the someone else was smoking. Even if that were true, our probation orders say that "You shall not consume any alcoholic beverage or controlled substance unless prescribed by a duly licensed physician. You shall not associate with anyone to be involved in those activities." Just being around someone using is a violation. (I'm a probation officer.)

Given what I witnessed at some coworker parties, I could almost believe that it was possible to test positive from second hand smoke. Some of my coworkers rolled joints the size of Cubans (I hate drugs. I was trying to get along with coworkers. Didn't work.)

For example, the firefighters in TX this past week who battled the blaze at the warehouse inhaled enough to test positive.

 

[imcasual]

Thanks for the variety of 'colorful' replies...lol

...guess I was either looking for someone to tell me I had a leg to stand on..(sorry about the pun, Wkrs Comp and all ... or maybe just a hug. NAW. However your straight-forward responses have
quelled my panic, a little bit; not unlike the feeling when you realize you're really gonna drown!

Bottom line to this one, in my mind, is that in most States, none of us is safe as long as employment is considered At Will. But my 2nd purpose to this post is to clarify my stance on retesting the same sample: 6th grade science taught us about tests and verification of those tests. Here's an oversimplified example: if you bake a cake and the result is awful, you may suspect the eggs you added to the mix were bad. Do you take the rest of that batter and bake it again just to make sure? No. You eliminate the variables by repeating the same recipe with fresh eggs. If that doesn't work, you substitute another ingredient, one by one until you have isolated the problem. OR you can at least say "I'm confident my methods weren't faulty". Test results are only as reliable as the integrity of the specimen AS TESTED, after it had been processed through a series of humans; humans who, as we all know, are all too frequently loathe to admit they made a mistake, perhaps?

 

[moburkes]

Thats nonsense. When you get drug tested, they take more than one sample from your urine. So, using your example, they use the same batter to make 2 cakes. If illegal drugs only stay in your system for x number of days, and they take another sample after x number of days has passed, how is that recreating the sample? No, your logic won't work here. Stop doing illegal drugs if you want to work in corporate America.