The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 440.101. . . . And, while Section 440.101 does not expressly set forth any private cause of action, significantly, Section . . .
. . . . § 440.101 et seq.; Haw.Rev.Stat. § 329B-1 et seq.; Idaho Code Ann. § 72-1701 et seq.; Iowa Code Ann . . .
. . . She argues that the statutory forfeiture of benefits in section 440.101(2), Florida Statutes (1997), . . . Section 440.101(2), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that [i]f an employer implements a drug-free workplace . . . Claims (JCC) held Van Duyn was ineligible for worker’s compensation benefits on the authority of section 440.101 . . . return to give a second sample at a later time, Van Duyn submits that the bar to benefits in section 440.101 . . . Moreover, we reject Van Duyn’s argument that the bar to benefits provided in section 440.101(2) does . . .
. . . Sections 440.101 and 440.102, Florida Statutes (1995), were enacted “to promote drug-free workplaces. . . . ” § 440.101(1), Fla. . . . Statutes (1995), by imposing contract language which abrogated employees’ statutory rights under sections 440.101 . . .
. . . See §§ 440.09(3), 440.09(7), 440.101, 440.102, Fla.Stat. (1991); Ch. 38F-9, Fla.Admin.Code. . . . Section 440.101, Florida Statutes (1991), provides that “[i]t is the intent of the Legislature to promote . . . Section 440.101 provides that it is “the intent of the Legislature that drug abuse be discouraged and . . . delays, and tragedies associated with work-related accidents resulting from drug abuse by employees.” § 440.101 . . .
. . . described in this subsection, an employer must have implemented a drug-free workplace program under ss. 440.101 . . .
. . . employer had implemented a drug-free workplace program and all benefits were barred pursuant to section 440.101 . . . Section 440.101 sets forth the legislative intent regarding drug-free workplaces: ... . . . noted that the question of what constitutes “compensation” had to be addressed because unlike section 440.101 . . . denied under section 440.09(3), the legislature could have used the same terminology used in section 440.101 . . . ’s rebanee on the fact that the legislature referred to “medical and indemnity benefits” in section 440.101 . . .
. . . third-party tort-feasor,, since Section 440.11 provides that “The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.101 . . .