CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc.

Brenda L. Jennings sued her employer, Mineo Technology Labs, Inc., seeking to prevent the company from implementing a random drug-testing program for employees via urinalysis, arguing it violated common-law privacy rights. The company counterclaimed, asserting its plan was lawful. The trial court sided with the employer, declaring the plan lawful and enforceable, denying Jennings relief, and awarding attorney's fees to the company. On appeal, Jennings challenged both the lawfulness of the plan and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that 'at-will' employment allows employers to modify terms, and an employee's consent to testing, even if economically compelled, negates an unlawful invasion of privacy. The court also upheld the attorney's fees award, finding no abuse of discretion.

Employment LawDrug TestingPrivacy RightsAt-Will EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefEmployer RightsEmployee RightsCommon LawContract Law
References
12
Case No. 01-A-01-9509-CV-00407; 95-C-67
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1996

Evelene v. Stein v. Davidson Hotel Company

Evelene N. Stein appealed the dismissal of her wrongful discharge and invasion of privacy claims against Davidson Hotel Company, her former employer. Stein was terminated after a positive random drug test and argued that Davidson's termination policy violated her constitutional and common law rights to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim, holding that Tennessee's public policy favors drug-free workplaces and no clear public policy opposed drug-test-based termination. Regarding the invasion of privacy, the court found Stein failed to allege sufficient public disclosure of her drug test results. Additionally, the court concluded that Stein had implicitly waived her right to an intrusion into seclusion claim by consenting to the drug test and continuing her employment, thereby affirming the trial court's decision and remanding for any further necessary proceedings.

Wrongful DischargeEmployment-at-WillDrug Testing PolicyPublic Policy ViolationInvasion of PrivacyConstitutional RightsSearch and SeizureEmployee TerminationAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment Standard
References
32
Case No. 2017-07-0644
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2018

Polk, Ricky v. Delta Faucet

Ricky Polk sought medical benefits for a May 22, 2017, work-related injury, which Delta Faucet denied based on his alleged falsification of a drug test. Polk was terminated after a testing nurse discovered a concealed urine container during a drug test on June 7, 2018. The Court found that the drug test, administered sixteen days post-injury, did not adhere to the Tennessee Drug Free Workplace Program's timing requirements. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Polk, stating he is entitled to medical benefits and ordered Delta Faucet to provide a panel of physicians for his evaluation.

Workers' CompensationDrug TestExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsFalsificationEmployee TerminationDFWPTennessee LawProximate CausePanel of Physicians
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coleman v. Town of Hempstead

Plaintiff Paul Coleman, an employee of the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation, was suspended for 24 days after failing a random drug test he alleges was flawed. He filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for procedural and substantive due process violations, along with state law claims for negligence and malpractice, against the Town, its officials, and various private entities involved in the drug testing, including Medical Review Officers (MROs) and a laboratory. Defendants University Services (an MRO) and LabCorp Laboratories (the testing lab) moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing they are private entities not acting under color of state law for the § 1983 claims, and that LabCorp owed no duty to the plaintiff for the negligence claim. The Court denied both motions, finding that the plaintiff adequately alleged that LabCorp and University Services acted under color of state law, either through a close-nexus or symbiotic relationship with the Town. Regarding the negligence claim against LabCorp, the Court determined that New York law would recognize a common law duty of care owed by a drug testing laboratory to an employee in such circumstances, due to the significant and potentially devastating consequences of a false-positive drug test.

Drug TestingWorkplace Drug TestingDue Process ViolationSection 1983 ClaimNegligence ClaimMedical MalpracticeState Action DoctrinePrivate Entity LiabilityMotion to DismissUrine Sample
References
33
Case No. 2015-08-0001
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2015

Ellis, John v. A AIR-One

Employee John D. Ellis filed a request for an Expedited Hearing after his employer, A Air-One Services, and its insurer, Auto Owners' Insurance, denied his workers' compensation claim based on an illegal drug usage defense. An initial urine drug test was positive for methamphetamines, but a subsequent hair sample test was negative. The Court found Mr. Ellis' testimony, denying drug use as the proximate cause of his September 19, 2014 back injury, to be credible. Due to conflicting drug test results and the absence of evidence supporting the defense, the Court ruled that the employer's illegal drug usage defense was not supported by the evidence.

illegal drug usage defenseproximate causeconflicting drug testsback injuryexpedited hearingTennessee Code AnnotatedWorkers' Compensation Claimsmedical benefitstemporary disability benefitsL2-L3 disc herniation
References
1
Case No. W2001-02829-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2003

Michael Higgins v. Sheriff A.C.Gilles Jr.

Michael Higgins, an off-duty deputy sheriff, was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia and subsequently terminated after refusing two direct orders to submit to a drug test. He later requested a test after consulting an attorney, but his request was denied. The Civil Service Merit Board upheld his termination for insubordination and possession/use of illegal drugs, a decision affirmed by the chancery court. The Court of Appeals found material evidence supporting the Merit Board's decision, ruling that the presence of Association representatives at his interrogation fulfilled his right to consultation and that a three-day delay for a drug test was unreasonable. Consequently, the chancery court's order was affirmed.

Police DisciplineTermination AppealDrug Use AllegationsInsubordinationRight to CounselAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewLaw Enforcement MisconductCivil ServiceUrinalysis
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith County Education Ass'n v. Smith County Board of Education

This case involves a constitutional challenge by Smith County public school teachers against the Smith County Board of Education's random drug testing policy. Plaintiffs argued that the policy violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches due to insufficient notice regarding tested substances and intrusive implementation procedures. The Court determined that while random drug testing of teachers is not inherently unconstitutional and serves a legitimate deterrent purpose, the 2007 policy, as written and implemented, was flawed. Specifically, it lacked clarity on the specific drugs being tested, included an 'any detectable amount' clause, and involved intrusive sample collection practices. Consequently, the Court found the policy unconstitutional for violating the individual plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights due to its lack of adequate notice and unreasonable intrusion on privacy.

Fourth Amendment RightsDrug Testing PolicyPublic Education LawUnreasonable SearchesTeacher PrivacyConstitutional ChallengeSchool Board AuthorityDue ProcessIn Loco ParentisSafety-Sensitive Positions
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catlin v. Orleans County Highway Department

Petitioner was discharged from his employment as a maintenance equipment operator for the Orleans County Highway Department after testing positive for marihuana during a random drug test. He initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, contending that the penalty was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and that he was denied due process due to inadequate notice of the consequences of a positive drug test. The court rejected these contentions, finding that he had received mandatory training and notice regarding the drug policy. The court upheld the dismissal, concluding that the severe penalty was not disproportionate to the offense, especially given his duties operating heavy equipment near others and the public.

Drug TestingPublic EmploymentCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Employment TerminationArbitrary and CapriciousDue ProcessPenalty ProportionalityOrleans CountyHeavy Equipment Operator
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seelig v. Koehler

This is a dissenting opinion regarding the random drug testing of correction officers. Justice Milonas argues that the majority decision to allow such testing without reasonable suspicion oversteps the boundaries set by the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. The dissent emphasizes that New York State law requires more stringent conditions for random searches, particularly concerning privacy interests and government justification. Milonas distinguishes correction officers from other law enforcement personnel, highlighting their reduced exposure to drugs within a controlled environment, which lessens the justification for random testing. The opinion concludes that there is no legal precedent in New York for the proposed blanket random drug-screening program for all correction officers.

Drug TestingUrinalysisFourth AmendmentPrivacy RightsPublic EmployeesCorrectional OfficersPolice PowersConstitutional ScrutinyReasonable SuspicionNew York Court of Appeals Precedent
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,197 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational