# Thompson v. Capital Steel Co.

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · November 25, 1992 · 613 So. 2d 178

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7626349

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnny A. THOMPSON v. CAPITAL STEEL COMPANY and Highlands Insurance Company
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** November 25, 1992
- **Citations:** 613 So. 2d 178; 1992 La. App. LEXIS 3687; 1992 WL 358413
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Edwards
- **Judges:** Edwards, Shortess, Whipple
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7626349

## Opinion text

EDWARDS, Judge,
dissents with reasons.
The majority interprets LSA-R.S. 23:1081(8) as limiting the admissibility of drug tests to instances where the employer has a written and promulgated policy in effect. In my opinion, this provision, when read with the other subsections of the statute, in particular subsections (6), (7) and (9), does not limit and exclude other admissible evidence, but rather ensures, by the use of the language “shall be considered admissible evidence,” that such evidence will be allowed when acquired pursuant to a writ *185 ten and promulgated policy. In this case, the evidence presented by the employer, although not acquired pursuant to a written policy, nevertheless complies with the reliability factors set out in subsection (9), and in my opinion, is “other competent evidence” of the employee’s drug use which is admissible under subsections (5) and (6), notwithstanding the language in (8). Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7626349. Public record. Not legal advice.