TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS 

AT NASHVILLE

JIMMIE RAMSEY, ) Docket No. 2016-06-2189

 Employee, )

)

v. )

) State File No. 62698-2016

T.E. ROBERTS, )

 Employer,

UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY 

COMPANY,

 Insurance Carrier. 

)

)

)

)

)

Judge Joshua Davis Baker

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER DENYING REQUESTED BENEFITS

This matter came before the Court on September 14, 2017, on Jimmie Ramsey’s

request for expedited hearing seeking medical benefits. T.E. Roberts argued that Mr. 

Ramsey lost his right to any benefits when he failed a post-accident drug screen. The 

Court agrees and denies Mr. Ramsey’s request for workers’ compensation benefits at this 

time.

History of Claim

This claim concerns a fall at work and alleged illegal drug use. Mr. Ramsey 

worked as a laborer for T.E. Roberts. On August 17, 2016, he fell from a height of 

approximately two feet while descending a ladder. He incurred multiple injuries from the 

accident. On the date of accident, Mr. Ramsey gave a urine sample for drug testing, and 

the sample indicated marijuana use. Upon receiving the test results, T.E. Roberts, a 

member of the Tennessee Drug Free Workplace Program (TDFWP), terminated Mr. 

Ramsey and denied his claim. The only issue at the expedited hearing concerned whether 

Mr. Ramsey’s positive drug screen barred his recovery of workers’ compensation 

benefits. 

The day after his termination and five days after giving the first sample, Mr. 

Ramsey submitted another urine sample for private testing. While the test indicated he 
2

had marijuana metabolites in this bloodstream, the level was too low to constitute a 

positive drug test. 

Mr. Ramsey testified that, although he smoked marijuana several days before the 

accident, he smoked none that morning and was not intoxicated. His direct supervisor, 

Jimmy Collins, testified he saw Mr. Ramsey that morning and spent several minutes with 

him during group stretching exercises and while assigning him work. Mr. Collins said 

Mr. Ramsey did not appear to be intoxicated. 

Instead of intoxication, Mr. Ramsey testified that his inexperience using the safety 

harness and the employer’s failure to train him in its proper use resulted in his injury. 

While he admitted Mr. Collins showed him how to use the device, he claimed the training 

was insufficient. Mr. Ramsey described difficulty donning the harness, claimed it did not 

fit, and said the harness slipped down off his body before he fell from the ladder.

Mr. Collins, on the other hand, testified he fit the harness for Mr. Ramsey’s use 

and spent about twenty minutes teaching him to the use the equipment. He further stated 

that Mr. Ramsey used the harness several days before the accident with only minimal 

difficulty. 

T.E. Roberts also introduced a copy of Mr. Ramsey’s personnel file. The file 

contained a copy of a document entitled “Rules of Conduct and Work Habits.” Although 

the document bears Mr. Ramsey’s name on the first page, the signature line on the second 

page is blank. Information giving employees notice that T.E. Roberts was a certified 

drug free workplace was contained on the unsigned page. Mr. Ramsey denied seeing the 

document or knowing that T.E. Roberts participated in the TDFWP. He also denied he 

wrote his name on the first page. T.E. Roberts introduced other examples of Mr. 

Ramsey’s handwriting in an attempt to impeach his testimony. 

T.E. Roberts also introduced a letter from the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation 

acknowledging the Bureau’s receipt of its application for acceptance to the TDFWP. The 

letter came from Mr. Ramsey’s personnel file. Additionally, Terry Roberts, owner of the 

company, testified that the company regularly conducts random drug tests, requires them 

after any work-related injury, and requires them for safety-sensitive positions. Mr. 

Roberts stated the company put the policy in place several years ago. He also stated that 

the “Rules of Conduct and Work Habits” are included in every employment application. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

In order to prevail at an expedited hearing, Mr. Ramsey must provide sufficient 

evidence from which this Court can determine that he is likely to prevail at a hearing on 

the merits. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(d)(1) (2016). The Court finds he is unlikely 
3

to prevail at a hearing on the merits. 

The lab-test results of urine collected on the day of Mr. Ramsey’s accident 

indicated he used marijuana. Further, it appears from the results that the lab conducted a 

confirmation test, which was also positive for marijuana. Additionally, Mr. Ramsey 

requested his own test five days after the accident. That test showed his “cannabinoid” 

level was 41 ng/ml on August 22, 2016. The cut-off for a positive initial test is 50 ng/ml. 

However, the cutoff for a positive confirmation test, which is usually conducted five days 

after the initial test, is 15 ng/ml. See Tenn. Comp. R.. & Regs. 0800-02-12-.03(17)(a) 

(2017). 

T.E. Roberts asserted the affirmative defense that, as a member of the TDWFP, 

Mr. Ramsey’s positive drug screen resulted in a presumption that illegal drug usage was 

the proximate cause of his injury. Id. at § 50-6-110(c)(1). It further argued that due to 

the positive drug screen, Mr. Ramsey bore the burden of proving by “clear and 

convincing evidence” that drug use was not the proximate cause of his injury. Id. T.E. 

Roberts claimed Mr. Ramsey failed to carry this burden, thus rendering his claim noncompensable pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(a)(3). The Court 

agrees. 

In order for the presumption to arise, T.E. Roberts must show that, “it has 

implemented a drug-free workplace” pursuant to statutory and regulatory guidelines. Id. 

at § 50-6-110(c)(1). The Court finds that T.E. Roberts implemented this policy. A copy 

of a memo from the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation acknowledged that the Bureau 

had accepted T.E. Roberts’ application to participate in the TDFWP program. Under 

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-9-104(b), the filing of the application “shall create 

a rebuttable presumption that the employer has established a drug-free workplace 

program and is entitled to the protection and benefit of this chapter,” which includes a 

shift in the burden of proof whenever an employee tests positive for drugs following a 

workplace accident. Mr. Ramsey’s personnel file contained a copy of the letter. 

In addition to the application, Mr. Collins testified that he knew of T.E. Roberts’ 

participation in a TDFWP program. He said was tested multiple times while working for 

T.E. Roberts. Mr. Roberts explained that the company regularly conducts random drug 

tests, requires them after any work-related injury, and requires them for safety-sensitive 

positions. Mr. Roberts stated the company put the policy in place several years ago. He 

also stated that the “Rules of Conduct and Work Habits,” which warn potential 

employees of T.E. Roberts’ participation in the TDFWP program, are included in every 

employment application. 

For his part, Mr. Ramsey did not sign the “Rules of Conduct and Work Habits” 

included in his personnel file and denied having seen the document. He also claimed he 
4

did not write his name on the top line of the document and denied knowing of T.E. 

Roberts’ participation in the TDFWP program. Upon reviewing the samples of his

handwriting presented by T.E. Roberts, the Court does not find his testimony on this 

issue credible. The handwritten name on the top of the application matches almost 

identically to Mr. Ramsey’s handwriting on his petition for benefit determination. The

Court finds that Mr. Ramsey printed his name on the top line of the “Rules of Conduct 

and Work Habits.” 

Based on these findings, the Court holds that T.E. Roberts met its burden in 

proving the presumption arose that Mr. Ramsey’s marijuana use proximately caused his 

workplace accident. In order to prevail in his request for benefits, Mr. Ramsey must 

rebut this presumption by “clear and convincing evidence.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-

110(c)(1). The Court holds that he failed to do so. 

Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that leaves “no serious or substantial 

doubt” in the mind of the fact finder about the conclusions to draw from the evidence. 

See Goff v. Elmo Greer & Sons Const., 297 S.W.3d 175, 187 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Hodges 

v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 n.3 (Tenn. 1992)). Mr. Ramsey admitted he 

smoked marijuana four days before the accident but denied smoking it on the date of the 

accident. He denied being intoxicated on the date of the accident, and Mr. Collins also 

said he did not think Mr. Ramsey was intoxicated. This is only proof presented to rebut 

the presumption that marijuana use proximately caused the accident. 

The Court did not find Mr. Ramsey a credible witness. T.E. Roberts impeached 

his credibility by the false testimony he gave concerning the appearance of his name on 

the “Rules of Conduct and Work Habits.” The Court finds unreliable Mr. Ramsey’s 

testimony about when he last smoked marijuana, and his lack of knowledge that T.E. 

Roberts participated in the TDFWP. Additionally, Mr. Ramsey provided no proof about 

the effects on his reaction time that may have resulted from the level of marijuana 

metabolites present in his bloodstream on the day of the accident. See Interstate Mech. 

Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh, 229 S.W.3d 674, 681-82 (Tenn. 2007) (Discussing how 

the effects of marijuana affect reaction time.). 

The Court is left with “substantial doubt” concerning whether Mr. Ramsey’s fall at 

work did not result from intoxication. The Court, therefore, finds that Mr. Ramsey did 

not prove by clear and convincing evidence that intoxication did not cause his accident. 

Accordingly, the Court holds that Mr. Ramsey is unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the 

merits in proving he suffered a compensable claim.1 

 

1 The Court, however, notes that this holding does not prevent Mr. Ramsey from marshalling additional 

evidence to present at a compensation hearing where he might ultimately prove entitlement to benefits.
5

 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Ramsey’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is denied at this time. 

2. This matter is set for a status conference on November 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. 

(CT). The Court will convene the hearing via telephone. You must call 615-741-

2113 or toll-free at 855-874-0474 to participate in the Hearing.

ENTERED ON THIS THE 2

ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.

_____________________________________

Judge Joshua Davis Baker

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
6

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Affidavit of Jimmy Ramsey

2. Denial Letter

3. E-screen Drug Screen Results

4. Aversys Drug Screen Results

5. Amended Wage Statement

6. Personnel File

7. Petition for Benefit Determination

8. Medical Records

Technical Record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Dispute Certification Notice

3. Request for Expedited Hearing

4. T.E. Roberts’ Witness and Exhibit List

5. T.E. Roberts’ Prehearing Statement

6. Mr. Ramsey’s Witness and Exhibit List

7. Mr. Ramsey’s Prehearing Statement
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent to the 

following recipients by the following methods of service on the ____ day of October, 

2017.

Name Certified 

Mail

Via 

Fax

Via 

Email

Email Address

Luvell Glanton, 

Employee’s

Attorney

X glantonfirm@gmail.com

Michael Jones,

Employer’s

Attorney

X mjones@wimberlylawson.com

_____________________________________

Penny Shrum, Clerk

Court of Workers' Compensation Claims

WC.CourtClerk@tn.gov

2nd