Suitter v. Johnsonville Sausage, 127306

Scott Suitter, an employee of Johnsonville Sausage, reported a work-related back injury in November 2020 and was given work restrictions by his doctor.
Johnsonville had a policy requiring drug testing for employees who reported work-related injuries.
Suitter attended a scheduled medical appointment for evaluation nearly 18 days after his reported injury, where he was informed that a drug test was required.
Suitter left the clinic before the drug test could be administered, despite being warned that leaving would be considered a refusal to test.
Johnsonville terminated Suitter’s employment for refusing the test; his workers compensation benefits were also denied due to the alleged willful refusal.
The Workers Compensation Appeals Board upheld the denial, but Suitter sought judicial review, arguing lack of substantial evidence and misapplication of the law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Suitter subject to Johnsonville’s drug testing policy?	Not subject since the injury was not formally recognized as work-related.	Employee is subject regardless of formal acknowledgment; policy covers alleged injuries.	Substantial evidence shows policy applies.
Was there proper notice/request to submit to a drug test?	No advance notice; only learned of the test during appointment.	Policy and day-of notification gave adequate notice.	Sufficient notice found—request was valid.
Did Suitter willfully refuse the drug test?	No willful refusal; wanted to comply but needed information from his phone.	Refusal was willful given repeated warnings and his decision to leave.	Willful refusal supported by evidence.
Was the denial of benefits proper given test timing?	Refusal not within a reasonable time of injury; should not forfeit benefits.	Timing immaterial; refusal triggers automatic forfeiture per policy/statute.	Reversed—refusal over 18 days after injury does not meet "reasonable time"; benefits should not be forfeited.
Was K.S.A. 44-501(b)(1)(E) unconstitutionally applied?	Board’s application denied due process and substitute remedy.	Statute applied as written, with notice and process followed.	Board’s application misapplied the statute, violating legislative intent.

Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich, 283 Kan. 508 (appellate review standard for factual findings in workers’ compensation)
Neal v. Hy–Vee, Inc., 277 Kan. 1 (willful refusal standard in context of medical exams)
Bair v. Peck, 248 Kan. 824 (constitutional limits on restricting worker remedies)
Poole v. Earp Meat Co., 242 Kan. 638 (requirement that intoxication must be cause of the injury for employer defense)
Kindel v. Ferco Rental Inc., 258 Kan. 272 (liberal construction in favor of awarding benefits)