Source: https://www.sponslerbishop.com/lingo-v-early/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 07:41:54+00:00

Document:
ISSUE:	Did the Superior Court err when it reversed the Appellate Division’s ruling that the employer was entitled to avail itself of the rebuttable presumption that the injury was caused by a controlled substance pursuant to O.C.G.A. §34-9-17(b)(2)?
DISCUSSION:	The Court of Appeals found that the Superior Court did not err.
The claimant was injured badly when a truck, which was backing up, crushed him against a loading dock. The claimant was taken to the hospital for immediate emergency surgery to address multiple injuries. The employer requested a post-injury drug test and sent a laboratory technician to the hospital to obtain a urine sample. The technician spoke with an operating room nurse about the need for a urine sample. The nurse brought the sample which was bagged, sealed and labeled to the technician. The sample tested positive for marijuana.
The Administrative Law Judge held the employer could not avail itself of the rebuttable presumption since there was no evidence as to who had collected the sample. O.C.G.A. §34-9-17(b)(3), which deals with the applicability of the rebuttable presumption where an employee refuses to submit to a drug test, states that for the rebuttable presumption to apply to a drug test refusal, the test must be a reliable, scientific test to be performed in the manner outlined in O.C.G.A. §34-9-415. O.C.G.A. §34-9-415(d)(5) specifies the individuals authorized to collect the sample which is being refused. Since there was no evidence regarding the identity of the sample collector in Lingo, supra, the Administrative Law Judge held that the rebuttable presumption could not be used.
The Appellate Division reversed holding that any defect in chain of custody went to the weight of the evidence and that the evidence appeared sufficiently reliable to allow the employer to use the rebuttable presumption.
The Superior Court reversed the Appellate Division, in part, because the employer failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisites in O.C.G.A. §34-9-415. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court despite the fact that there is no reference to O.C.G.A. §34-9-415 in the section of O.C.G.A. §34-9-17 dealing with the results from a blood or urine test which is actually performed. The reference to O.C.G.A. §34-90-415 appears only in the section dealing with the presumption when the test is refused. The Court of Appeals appears to have drafted an additional requirement which was not included by the legislature. Certainly, the Court signals it will be hyper-vigilant to make sure each and every detail is followed before the rebuttable presumption will be used. It is hoped this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

References: §34
 §34
 §34
 §34
 §34
 §34
 §34
 §34