<p class="msonormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span>When is intoxication a defense in MN workers´ compensation claims? Rarely, as demonstrated by a Workers´ Compensation Court of Appeals reversal of the Compensation Judge´s decision to deny benefits based on that defense. </span></font></p>
<p class="msonormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span>Minnesota Statutes 176.021, subd. 1, provides that an employer is not liable for workers´ compensation benefits if the employee is intoxicated at the time of injury, but only if the intoxication is the "proximate cause" of the injury. The employer holds the burden of proof in establishing this defense and the facts supporting it. </span></font></p>
<p class="msonormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span>In the case of <u>Kowalik v. Martinson Constr.</u>, slip op. (WCCA 7/8/04), the employee worked as a roofer. After drinking beer Sunday night, the morning of Monday, and then again at lunch on Monday, the employee continued working after lunch and fell from the roof to the ground after a subfascia board gave way as he stepped on it. At the hospital, the employee´s blood alcohol level was 0.30. </span></font></p>
<p class="msonormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span>The employee admitted to being an alcoholic, but denied that it affected his ability to work on the day of the injury. After a hearing, the Compensation Judge disagreed and denied the employee´s claim for benefits based on the intoxication defense. The Workers´ Compensation Court of Appeals disagreed and ordered that benefits be paid.</span></font></p>
<p class="msonormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span>The Court of Appeals agreed that facts established the intoxication of the employee, but reversed the Compensation Judge´s finding that the intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury. The Court of Appeals found that the employer did not offer an expert with adequate experience or foundation to render an opinion as to the causal relationship of the intoxication to the injury. The employer had introduced a roofing consultant to testify as to roofing safety standards, but the Court of Appeals found that he lacked foundation or experience to testify as to the impairment effect of different levels of intoxication on a person. The Court of Appeals indicated that typically this opinion would require a doctor, toxicologist, or similar expert to testify regarding the relationship of blood alcohol content on the employee´s rationality, judgment or impairment of function. The Court of Appeals found that the significance of the blood alcohol level alone did not fulfill the employer´s burden of establishing the workers´ compensation defense.</span></font></p>
