Section 2353 Extravaganza in Delaware: A Forfeiture Based on Both Intoxication and Failure to Use a Safety Device

It’s in the bag — urine that is.  And can you even begin to guess why this claimant was wearing a bag of urine?  I will let the ever-victorious Cheryl Ward tell it (eventually), but before I do, I just cannot contain myself — this case is a veritable trifecta of legal wonders:

• No comp for you due to intoxication (cocaine and marijuana)

• No comp for you due to willful failure to use a safety device (seriously, how often is that defense upheld?)

• No comp for you because when you wear a bag of someone else’s urine strapped to your ankle, do you really expect anyone to have any credibility? (besides which, how gross is that?)

So here is what Cheryl had to say:

Well the decision stemming from the Daubert decision is now out! And when you wear a bag of urine around your ankle to defraud your employer and pass random drug tests, you are not very credible.  Rare instance of intoxication defense being successful! Dr. Hameli, the only expert who testified, opined the claimant ingested cocaine and marijuana within hours of the work accident.  His opinion that the claimant’s fall was substantially caused by his drug intoxication was upheld!

So this case also had Dr. Ali Hameli, former Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Delaware and one of our deans of forensics.  And you don’t often see the whole willful failure to use a safely appliance being applauded by our IAB.  I frankly think they were so repulsed by the urine bag that they couldn’t get past it, any of it . . . .

Read it. Roger Johnson v. RC Fabricators, IAB Hr’g No. 1404987 (Apr. 9, 2015). Have fun with it.  I know I did, LOL!!!

Irreverently yours,

Cassandra Roberts