Federal agencies Recordkeeping

Employee injured while drunk? It’s probably recordable, OSHA says

OSHA_logo -- Aug 2013

Washington – An on-the-job injury suffered by a drunk employee is likely a recordable case, OSHA states in a new letter of interpretation.

In a scenario presented by an employer, a worker was injured when his hand was caught between two objects. A drug screening administered after the worker received medical treatment showed he was intoxicated, bringing into question whether the incident is recordable considering the employee was self-medicating with alcohol for his non-work-related alcoholism.

In response, OSHA noted that injuries and illnesses are not recordable if the incident is “solely the result” of a number of factors, including self-medication for a condition unrelated to work. However, the scenario described does not meet the exception laid out in the standard, OSHA determined after consulting with agency physicians.

“The intake of alcohol does not treat the disorder of alcoholism,” OSHA wrote in its March 21 response. “Instead, drinking alcohol is a manifestation of the disorder.”

Because the injury was caused by an event at work and meets the general recording criteria, the employer must record the incident, OSHA stated.

Post a comment to this article

Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy. (Anonymous comments are welcome; merely skip the “name” field in the comment box. An email address is required but will not be included with your comment.)

Title

Rob Williamson
December 9, 2016
Its time to take the gloves off! Political correctness and frivolous litigation's along with so many gray areas written into policies, standards and even laws are the root cause to this issue of drunkenness at a work place. At what point do we safety professional have to be trained with regards to suspicion or reasonable doubt when it comes to identifying and I'm going to use this term IDIOTS who are under the influence on our job sites? Maybe if we held the IDIOT employee SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for his or her actions while working drunk or drug idled on the job, there might be a chance to cause THEIR thought process before showing up to work altered. I've been witness to an employer willfully knowing that an employee is working while under the effects of hydrocodone on the job-site and simply saying since it was prescribed and it was written down on a pre employment drug screen it was fine to work as long as they weren't over medicated! Give me a freaking break! I've also witnessed an employee abandon his job for 5 days, no call in, no returned calls answered and then shows back onto the job-site two weeks later saying he'd relapsed on meth and went into rehab and was hired back because he threatened to sue the company because their drug policy stated if an employee willfully admitted a drug dependency and went to rehab the employer had to bring them back to their position. I moved out of California, because the legalization of Medical and now recreational marijuana is going to put employers into some very precarious positions as far as employment go. OSHA should have the balls to implement a ZERO TOLERANCE DRUG LAW! But they wont! In some philosophical ideologies I myself even support the use of marijuana for medical purposes and also as far as under the influence its very easy to tell the difference between alcohol and cannabis intoxication. This is neither here nor there, because its a personal opinion away from the job site and I wouldn't and don't tolerate either on the job. But having worked as a safety professional for over 25 years I'm very intuitive and well versed in understanding employees whom are altered and applying reasonable suspension. In my honest opinion if any employee is found to be under any sort of extracurricular intoxicating influence and they are injured on the job? There are three root causes to look at. 1. How come the companies full expectation of either zero tolerance or not haven't been absolute and objectively communicated to all employees top to bottom with a full understanding of outcomes if either found under the influence, with verified training and validations and signed understanding of the complete policies guidelines and disciplinary actions in full? 2. The company in question has no pre job drug screening and or random testing and their under the influence policies are vague and ambiguous because of past lawsuits against them from employees who fought their policies and won so they just gave up. 3. So much political correctness and specialized training have been required by them that only a couple of employees have actually gone through this rigorous training and they're usually upper management who are so detached from the real world and job site that when this level of understanding is needed with a real case they can't react objectively because they have worked with these people day in and day out to understand what their actual personalities are and cant make an objective or accurate diagnosis other than to say they smell like booze or weed if the employee is stupid enough to actually not cover it up. In reality, our society is the main root cause, America has become so politically correct and so sensitive to everyone's EMOTIONS that we've lost the ability to react correctly and acutely by firing these idiots before they become a problem!

Title

Dave
March 6, 2017
Can employees sign final written warning for being found using alcohol

Title

Helen
August 7, 2018
If the employee is drinking on the job and the employer knows about it if she gets injured while at work what are the consequences the restaurant faces ?