Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Perkey v Aetna Industries 12.104

Section 29(1)(b)

MISCONDUCT, Drug testing, Evidence, Hearsay

CITE AS: Perkey v Aetna Industries, Macomb Circuit Court No. 96-7393-AE (August 21, 1997).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Gary A. Perkey

Employer: Aetna Industries

Docket No. MUL94-51225-133247W

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Drug test results are admissible since such documents are of a type commonly relied on by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs.

FACTS: The employer discharged the claimant after he tested positive for marijuana through a urine test. At the time he was hired, the claimant agreed to abide by the employer's work rules which prohibited drug use on the job or reporting to work under the influence. The claimant asserted the drug test results were inadmissible hearsay and improperly admitted at the Referee hearing.

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified for benefits under Section 29(1)(b).

RATIONALE: "Administrative agencies are given more discretion in admitting evidence than a trial court. An agency may admit and give probative effect to evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs." See also MCL 24.275. The court thus concluded the Referee made no reversible error in admitting the drug test results into evidence. The court also concluded that testing positive for marijuana showed the claimant was under the influence while on the job.


21, 16, d22: H

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page