Court of Appeals Rules Failure to Comply with Iowa Drug-Testing Statute Does Not Bar Admission of Drug Tests in Workers' Compensation Claim, Finds Claimant Failed to Rebut Presumption He Was Intoxicated

Davis v. Gordon Food Service, Inc., No. 22-1944 (Iowa App. Feb. 21, 2024)

Claimant suffered an injury at work.  Pursuant to the employer's drug policy, claimant took a drug test following the injury, which was positive for methamphetamines.  The test was not conducted in accordance with 730.5, which requires that two samples be taken to allow the person being tested to have the samples independently tested.  At hearing, the deputy concluded that the violation of 730.5 did not make the admission of the drug test inadmissible for purposes of the workers' compensation act.  The deputy also concluded that claimant did not rebut the presumption that he was intoxicated under 85.16 of the Code, despite the fact that claimant testified that he had not taken drugs for four days before the injury and there was no testimony that claimant was acting in an intoxicated manner and no evidence that intoxication led to the injury.  The commissioner affirmed, as did the district court on judicial review.

Claimant argues on appeal that the repeal of exempting testing for workers' compensation benefits under 730.5 and the silence of the 2017 revisions to the code on how to drug test meant that 730.5 required the exclusion of the results of the testing, since that testing was not conducted in accordance with that provision.  Claimant also notes that 730.5 applies in unemployment cases, a similar situation, under relevant caselaw.  The employer argued that the legislature was aware of 730.5 when the 2017 revisions occurred as 730.5 applies only to private employees and applying the statute in workers' compensation cases would lead to disparate results between private and public employees.  The court agrees with the employer and affirms the decision of the commissioner. The changes to 85.16 indicated that intoxication demonstrated by a positive test results led to a presumption of intoxication.  No reference to specific drug-testing provisions were referenced in 85.16 and the court finds this was a deliberate omission.  The court rejects the argument concerning application of 730.5 in unemployment cases, as workers' compensation and unemployment are the subject of two separate statutory regimes.

The court also rejects the argument that claimant rebutted the presumption of intoxication.  Claimant's argument was based on his testimony that a meth high would last for hours, not days and that he drove and otherwise acted without incident prior to the injury.  The noted that the deputy had found claimant's testimony self-serving and was a credibility finding of the deputy.  The court concluded that the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence.