Skip to main content
Cannabis and Workers’ Compensation: Why Intoxication Defenses Are So Difficult
When it comes to workers’ compensation claims, intoxication can sometimes serve as a defense for employers. Under Section 11 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, if an employee is injured while intoxicated due to the unlawful or unauthorized use of drugs or alcohol, there is a rebuttable presumption that the intoxication was the proximate cause of the injury. This presumption can be triggered by evidence such as: a positive drug or alcohol test; observable signs of impairment; or refusal to submit to testing.
However, cannabis cases present unique challenges that make them far more complicated than cases involving substances like alcohol, cocaine, or methamphetamine.
Why Cannabis Is Different
Cannabis remains in the body for an extended period—sometimes weeks after use—making it difficult to prove impairment at the time of injury. Illinois courts have consistently held that “mere consumption or ingestion of an intoxicating substance does not create a valid intoxication defense.” Instead, employers must show:
- Contemporaneous use – Evidence that the employee consumed cannabis close to the time of the accident, often demonstrated through quantitative levels in a drug test.
- Actual impairment – Proof that the employee was impaired while working, which typically requires expert testimony linking cannabinoid levels to impairment.
In terms of cannabis usage, without these elements, the presumption under Section 11 will not apply.
The Problem with Standard Drug Screens
Many workplace drug screens only report a positive or negative result for cannabis. This is not enough to establish impairment. Unless there is credible evidence, such as a co-worker’s testimony that the employee was acting intoxicated, the defense will likely fail. Courts require more than a positive test; they demand proof that intoxication was the proximate cause of the injury or that the employee was so impaired that it constituted a departure from employment.
Recent Case Law: A Cautionary Tale
Employers should not assume that a positive test equals impairment. The Ramirez v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 2025 IL App (1st) 242467WC, 1-24-2467WC (Ill. App. Oct 03, 2025) case serves as a warning for employers. In Ramirez, penalties were assessed against the employer for denying benefits based solely on a positive cannabis test. The Court distinguished alcohol from cannabis, explaining: “the statute places a test-based, numerical threshold for impairment from alcohol, but for marijuana it provides a more qualitative standard and requires ‘evidence of impairment.’” This underscores the importance of gathering sufficient evidence of impairment before asserting an intoxication defense.
Practical Takeaways for Employers
- Document any observable signs of impairment immediately after an incident.
- Obtain witness statements regarding the employee’s demeanor before the accident.
- Consider expert analysis when cannabinoid levels are available.
- Understand that cannabis cases are exceptionally hard to win without clear evidence of impairment.
Cannabis legalization and its lingering presence in the body have created a complex legal landscape for workers’ compensation claims. Employers must proceed carefully, ensuring they have strong evidence before relying on intoxication as a defense. If you have any questions about the intoxication defense, reach out to me here.