Marijuana Use Disputed in Rooftop Fall Injury Claim

By /

May 15, 2025 | Fresno, CA — MedLegalNews.com — Marijuana Use Disputed: A California appellate court has affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits for a roofing worker who tested positive for marijuana after falling from a rooftop. The worker failed to prove that the drug did not contribute to the accident, keeping the issue of marijuana use disputed when determining eligibility for compensation.

In this case, the court reinforced that even though marijuana is legal in California, its use remains a significant factor in workplace injury claims if there is any indication that impairment may have contributed to the incident. With marijuana use disputed, the burden falls on the worker to provide clear, credible evidence proving that their use of cannabis was not a contributing cause of the injury.

The ruling highlights the complexities that arise in workers’ compensation when marijuana use is disputed, especially as cannabis consumption becomes more socially accepted. Without objective medical evidence or expert testimony to counter toxicology findings, workers risk losing benefits when drug impairment is suspected.

Roofer Tests Positive After 20-Foot Fall

The injury occurred while the worker was installing shingles on a residential roof. He lost his balance and fell approximately 20 feet, suffering multiple fractures that required immediate medical attention. Upon his arrival at the hospital, a routine toxicology screen was administered, which confirmed the presence of THC—the psychoactive compound found in marijuana—prompting the issue of marijuana use disputed in the context of his injury claim.

Despite the worker’s claim that he had used marijuana several days prior to the incident, he did not submit any evidence or expert testimony to demonstrate that he was unimpaired at the time of the fall. This omission left the marijuana use disputed, with no objective data to counter the toxicology results. In workers’ compensation cases, especially where marijuana use is disputed, the lack of corroborating medical or toxicological analysis significantly weakens the injured worker’s position.

The court emphasized that in situations where marijuana use is disputed, it is not enough for a worker to simply assert sobriety—there must be credible, evidence-based support to establish that the presence of THC did not impair their ability to work safely.

Burden of Proof Was Not Met

California law under Labor Code § 3600(a)(4) permits insurers to deny workers’ compensation benefits when evidence shows that intoxication—whether from alcohol, marijuana, or other substances—caused or contributed to an injury. In this case, the employer’s insurer invoked this statute after a toxicology report confirmed the presence of THC in the injured roofer’s system. This raised the critical legal issue of marijuana use disputed in relation to the workplace accident.

Once marijuana use is disputed through credible evidence like a toxicology report, the burden of proof shifts to the injured worker. It then becomes the worker’s responsibility to demonstrate, through objective evidence, that their marijuana use did not impair their ability to perform job duties safely or contribute to the incident.

However, in this case, the worker failed to meet that burden. He did not submit expert medical opinions, toxicological analyses, or any specialized testimony to clarify whether the level of THC detected could have affected his physical coordination or judgment at the time of the fall. Without this critical evidence, the court deemed his personal claim of non-impairment unpersuasive.

The appellate court emphasized that when marijuana use is disputed in a workers’ compensation claim, subjective statements are not enough. Workers must provide substantial, science-backed evidence to rebut claims of impairment. This case sets a precedent in California, signaling that injured workers who test positive for marijuana must come prepared with expert testimony to retain eligibility for compensation when marijuana use is disputed.

Appellate Court Affirms Denial

The appellate panel upheld the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), affirming that the injured worker did not meet his burden of proof in the case. The court made it clear that in situations where marijuana use is disputed, subjective statements by the employee are insufficient to establish that drug use did not contribute to the injury. Instead, courts require objective, credible evidence—such as expert medical testimony or toxicological assessments—that can definitively address the extent of impairment or lack thereof.

This ruling reinforces that marijuana use disputed is a pivotal factor in workers’ compensation cases where intoxication is raised as a defense. The court emphasized that even in states like California where marijuana use is legal, its presence in an employee’s system can still jeopardize compensation eligibility if impairment cannot be conclusively ruled out.

The case serves as a cautionary example for both employers and workers navigating claims involving cannabis. When marijuana use is disputed, claimants must be prepared to present comprehensive evidence to counter any presumption of impairment. Without such evidence, as seen in this case, compensation claims are likely to be denied.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that marijuana, though legal in California, remains a legitimate basis for benefit denial if impairment is involved and cannot be ruled out.

Cannabis and Workers’ Comp: A Growing Legal Concern

This decision adds to a growing body of case law around marijuana and workplace injuries. As cannabis becomes more commonly used, both employers and employees face increasing legal risks without clear workplace policies and proper documentation.

For more on California’s Labor Code § 3600(a)(4), visit California Labor Code Section 3600 – Workers’ Compensation Eligibility & Intoxication Defense.

Stay informed on California workers’ compensation laws, legal defenses, and policy updates. Subscribe to MedLegalNews.com for expert analysis and the latest case developments.

📚 Read More from MedLegalNews.com:

Scroll to Top