 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan v. Afton11/30/1999
per collecting and handling of the specimen could contribute to a false positive result and could injure an employee. Santiago, 956 F. Supp. at 152-53; accord Stinson v. Physicians Immediate Care, Ltd., 646 N.E.2d 930, 933-34 (Ill. App. 1995); Lewis, 588 So.2d at 170.; Elliott, 588 So.2d at 176. It is foreseeable that in recommending testing to an employer, Afton=s failing to inform the employer about the proper interpretation and procedures when positive results occur could injure an employee.
Assisted by Santiago=s Discussion of the social considerations supporting the imposition of a duty, we see the emergence of a connection between Afton=s conduct and Duncan=s injury . Companies performing drug and alcohol testing benefit financially from a market increasing for two reasons: research showed that testing is now commonplace by employers because employee substance abuse is perceived as causing lost productivity, and because employers generally believe in the accuracy of drug tests, it Amay lead employers to repose undue confidence in their results.@ Santiago, 956 F. Supp. at 151.
One statistical study found that Atwo out of every five workers testing positive truly are drug free.@ Drug screens are plagued by the problems of Across-reactivity@B-namely, the familiar concern that metabolites of benign consumables, like poppy seed muffins, will be confused with metabolites of illicit substances; Aimpairment detectability@ . . . ; Apassive inhalation@ . . . ; specimen dilution, substitution or adulteration; improper calibration or cleaning of testing equipment; and simple technician error.
Id. (citations omitted). As a company contracting with an employer to collect and handle specimens for employee alcohol testing, Afton is aware that the likely effect of a false positive result is significant and devastating; employment will likely be terminated and future prospects of employment adversely impacted. Duncan presents a claim that, as a direct result of Afton=s negligent conduct, his employer terminated his employment because of erroneous alcohol testing results, and Afton=s conduct ascertainably injured Duncan, satisfying the second and third factors in our duty analysis. See Santiago, 956 F. Supp. at 151.
In assessing the moral blame factor, several considerations make it appropriate to impose a duty of reasonable care upon a collection company: its direct financial benefit in providing alcohol testing services to Duncan=s employer; its direct control over establishing and ensuring proper collection and handling procedures; its ability to hire and train competent personnel to perform services; and its ability to contract with the employer to ensure test results are properly interpreted and utilized.
Perhaps the most important factor in this analysis is whether the policy of preventing future harm is at issue. Afton does not present an argument on this particular factor. Companies like Afton provide services that present a risk of harm great enough to hold them accountable. The particular services provided demand adequate protection of employees= interests to prevent future harm, and the imposition of a duty to act reasonably will reduce the likelihood of injury . There is little question that our ruling that Afton owes a duty places a burden upon Afton to act in a Ascientifically reasonable manner@ and guard against human error; however, Afton is in the best position to guard against employee injury arising from its collection and handling procedures. Elliot, 588 So.2d at 176. Because Afton is paid for its services, it is better able to bear the burden financially than the individual wrongly maligned by a false positive report. Stinson, 646 N.E.2d at 934.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|