## Facts

- Thomas worked for Helen’s Roofing Company, Inc., replacing a roof on a building.
- Thomas fell from the roof and suffered injuries.
- After the fall, Thomas provided a urine sample that screened positive for cocaine.
- The record showed Thomas had previously used cocaine and marijuana.
- At the workers’ compensation hearing, Thomas testified he could not remember when he last used cocaine but stated he did not use cocaine on the day of the accident.
- Thomas’s supervisor did not see the fall; he testified he believed the only way Thomas could have gone off the roof was by jumping.
- The administrative law judge (ALJ) found Thomas’s injury was caused by intoxication from cocaine use and denied workers’ compensation benefits.
- The denial was affirmed through the administrative review process and reached the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer carried its burden to prove the statutory intoxication defense by showing Thomas was under the influence of cocaine at the time of the fall to a degree that affected his faculties and that the intoxication caused the injury.
2. Whether a positive post-accident urine test for cocaine and evidence of prior drug use, without evidence of contemporaneous impairment or a causal link, constitutes competent evidence supporting a denial of benefits.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits.
- The court held the record lacked competent evidence that Thomas was under the influence of cocaine at the time of the fall in a legally meaningful way.
- The court also held there was no competent evidence that cocaine use caused the fall; the supervisor’s “jumping” theory was speculative and not based on observation.

## Legal Principles

- Under Georgia workers’ compensation law, an employer asserting the intoxication defense bears the burden to prove the employee’s injury was caused by intoxication or being under the influence of drugs.
- Proof of ingestion or the mere presence of a drug in a post-accident test is not enough; the evidence must show the employee was under the influence to the extent that his judgment or conduct was noticeably affected at the time of the accident.
- The intoxication defense also requires causation: the employer must show the intoxication contributed to or caused the injury, not simply that the employee previously used drugs.
- While appellate courts generally defer to factfinders when findings are supported by competent evidence, speculation and inferences unsupported by evidence of impairment or causation do not satisfy the “any competent evidence” standard.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of benefits because the employer did not prove the intoxication defense: a positive urine test and a history of drug use, without evidence that Thomas was impaired at the time of the fall and without competent proof that drug use caused the accident, could not support a finding that intoxication caused the injury.


Thomas v. Helen's Roofing Company, Inc., 404 S.E.2d 331, 199 Ga. App. 161 (1991)