Opinion ID: 6335190
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: respondent’s defenses to positive test result

Text: We now shift our analysis to the question of whether Respondent’s claim of CBD use constitutes a defense to his positive test. It simply does not. Respondent admits that he consumed a CBD product and, as a result, he either unintentionally or unwillingly ingested THC. Specifically, he alleges that he purchased and consumed a CBD product on February 10, 2020, after he was assured by a pharmacist that the CBD product would not have any impact on his drug screens. Before the Board, Respondent produced a letter from 15 Harold T. Wells, a registered pharmacist and owner of BlueWells Family Pharmacy, Inc. In his letter, Mr. Wells indicated that Respondent purchased “the 2 oz. of the dietary supplement Optivida Hemp Extract 540 from BlueWells Family Pharmacy, Inc.” Mr. Wells further indicated that Optivida Health is “one of the most reputable processors of Hemp Extract in the country,” and its “stated goal is for the CBD to be high and the THC to be as close to zero as possible.” Mr. Wells was not called as a witness, and he did not indicate in his letter that he or any other pharmacist at his store assured Respondent that the CBD product would not have any impact on his drug screens. 15 The Board was persuaded by Respondent’s claims and supported its decision to grant Respondent’s appeal and reinstate his mining certifications by finding that Respondent “consulted with a pharmacist prior to consuming a CBD product and was assured by the pharmacist that the CBD product would not result in a positive drug test for THC.” In addition, the Board found that “the Medical Review Officer was not able to testify that the testing mechanism or methodology used by the testing laboratory could distinguish between THC and CBD.” 15 We are not unsympathetic to the claims of Respondent. We are mindful of his participation in a rehabilitation program and his drug screens as part of that program. We also note his testimony regarding the steps he took in an effort to try to make sure that CBD use would not impact any of his drug screens. However, these claims do not provide a defense to his positive drug test. 16 The Board is an administrative tribunal, and its power consists of only that which is given to it by statute. In Francis O. Day Co., Inc. v. West Virginia Reclamation Bd. of Review, 188 W. Va. 418, 424 S.E.2d 763 (1992), this Court stated: Administrative agencies and their executive officers are creatures of statute and delegates of the Legislature. Their power is dependent upon statutes, so that they must find within the statute warrant for the exercise of any authority which they claim. They have no general or common-law powers but only such as have been conferred upon them by law expressly or by implication. Id. at Syl. Pt. 1. Although this may be the first case in which this Court has had the opportunity to evaluate the “intent” argument as it relates to CBD products, this is not the first time that this Court has been faced with the argument that the OMHST must prove intentional consumption of marijuana. In Dean v. West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health, Safety and Training, No. 15-0724 (W.Va. June 21, 2016) (memorandum decision), this Court was faced with a certified person who alleged that he unknowingly consumed marijuana brownies. In Dean, this Court examined the applicable statutes and rules and noted that “[i]t is clear from the language of [West Virginia Code of State Rules § 56-19- 6.4.1.] that the only relevant inquiry is whether the certified individual tested positive for a prohibited substance.” Id. at . In addition, this Court clearly stated that we have no statute or rule that “require[s] [the OMHST] to prove intentional consumption of marijuana.” Dean at . 17 The Coal Mine Safety Board of Appeals does not have the authority to treat the consumption of a CBD product as a legal defense to a positive test for cannabinoids/THC when neither West Virginia Code § 22A-1A-1 et seq. nor West Virginia Code of State Rules § 56-19-1 et seq. provide for such a defense to an otherwise positive test. Although the West Virginia Legislature authorized the sale of CBD products after Dean was decided, the statutes and rules regarding the testing at issue in this case have not been amended to permit CBD use as a defense. West Virginia Code § 22A-1A-1(d)(1)(A) provides the only way to excuse Respondent’s positive drug test. Employers shall notify the Director of “[a]ny positive drug or alcohol test of a certified person. However, for purposes of determining whether a drug test is positive the certified employee may not rely on a prescription dated more than one year prior to the date of the drug test result.” Id. Dr. Carasig testified that the only way for her to clear Respondent’s test would be if he had a prescription for “something like Marinol or dronabinol,” which are “usually used for patients with complications from conditions like HIV or cancer where they are used when they need to stimulate the appetite.” No evidence was presented that Respondent had a prescription for any such drug. West Virginia Code § 22A-1A-1 et seq. is clear. Employers of certified persons are required to implement a substance abuse screening policy and program that 18 shall test for certain substances. 16 Employers are required to notify the Director of certain events as they relate to drug and alcohol tests. 17 For purposes of our review in the instant case, Respondent’s employer was required to notify the Director, within seven days of Respondent’s positive drug test. 18 Further, the Board was required to suspend Respondent’s certification cards for a minimum of six months from the date of his positive drug test. 19 “When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.” Syl. Pt. 5, State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 144 W. Va. 137, 107 S.E.2d 353 (1959). A decision that permits CBD use as a defense to a positive drug test is contrary to the statutory scheme enacted by the West Virginia Legislature. The OMHST and amicus curiae argue that permitting CBD use as a defense would allow every miner who fails a THC screen to avoid temporary suspension by simply arguing that he or she used a CBD product, and we agree. If the West Virginia Legislature had desired to permit CBD use as a defense to a positive drug test, it could have done so, either at the time it passed the original testing statute, or when it authorized the sale of CBD products, but it 16 See W. Va. Code § 22A-1A-1(a). 17 See W. Va. Code § 22A-1A-1(d). 18 Id. 19 See W. Va. Code § 22A-1A-2(c). 19 has clearly not recognized any such CBD use defense. It is simply not within our purview to act as a “superlegislature” and impose any such defense. Before this Court, Respondent also argues that the OMHST had the burden of showing that he “abused substances banned by the applicable statute and regulations.” In support of this argument, Respondent argues that the OMHST failed to present evidence that he consumed marijuana or that he was impaired on the date of his random drug screen, and he is correct. However, Respondent fails to acknowledge that the OMHST was not required to prove either of those things. According to Respondent, the drug screening procedure is “designed to identify whether or not miners have been abusing either alcohol or the other substances” identified in West Virginia Code § 22A-1A-1. In this regard, Respondent believes that the OMHST had the burden to show that he actually “abused” the substances identified in West Virginia Code § 22A-1A-1. We disagree. Despite Respondent’s argument to the contrary, the substance abuse screening policy and program contemplated in West Virginia Code § 22A-1A-1 et seq. is absolutely designed to suspend and/or revoke the certifications of miners who have been “determined to have a positive drug or alcohol test” as determined by the provisions of West Virginia Code § 22A-1A-1 et seq. There is no requirement that the OMHST prove that the certified person abuses alcohol or drugs. Further, Respondent’s argument that his use of a CBD product is a defense because it is a legal, over-the-counter product is misplaced. In addition to the ten specific drug-related substances set forth in West Virginia 20 Code § 22A-1A-1, the statute also requires alcohol tests. As alcohol is also a legal product, the statute clearly tests for legal products. Respondent has cited no legal authority that would support his position that the mere fact that CBD is not, per se, illegal means that it can be asserted as a defense to a positive THC testing result. In summary, Respondent has attempted, through the numerous defenses he has asserted, to shift the focus from the simple question on which this case rests: did he have a valid positive cannabinoids/THC test result? The answer to that question is yes. Therefore, because he has not successfully challenged the testing process or result, and he has no valid prescription that would fulfill the one valid and allowable defense, the statutory requirement that he be suspended is mandatory. Respondent essentially argues that in order for his certification to be suspended, OMHST must show he illegally used marijuana. No legal authority requires OMHST to make such a showing. By alleging that his use of CBD is a defense to a positive cannabinoids/THC test, Respondent is attempting to rewrite the statute to require that a test distinguish between THC and CBD. Neither the statute nor the rules interpreting it require that the test make such distinction. Finally, Respondent alleges that the mere fact that CDB products are not illegal prohibits his suspension for a positive cannabinoids/THC test. Respondent cannot claim this defense, not only because the statute and rules provide no such defense, but also because, as illustrated by the fact that the list of substances for which a certified person is to be tested includes such legal substances as alcohol, the test is not limited to substances that are, per se, illegal. 21