C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER II—FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › PART 219—CONTROL OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE › Subpart B—Prohibitions

49 C.F.R. § 219.103

Prescribed and over-the-counter drugs

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This subpart does not prohibit the use of a controlled substance (on Schedules II through V of the controlled substance list) prescribed or authorized by a medical practitioner, or possession incident to such use, if—

(1) The treating medical practitioner or a physician designated by the railroad has made a good faith judgment, with notice of the employee's assigned duties and on the basis of the available medical history, that use of the substance by the employee at the prescribed or authorized dosage level is consistent with the safe performance of the employee's duties;

(2) The substance is used at the dosage prescribed or authorized; and

(3) In the event the employee is being treated by more than one medical practitioner, at least one treating medical practitioner has been informed of all medications authorized or prescribed and has determined that use of the medications is consistent with the safe performance of the employee's duties (and the employee has observed any restrictions imposed with respect to use of the medications in combination).

(b) This subpart does not restrict any discretion available to the railroad to require that employees notify the railroad of therapeutic drug use or obtain prior approval for such use.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2022–2022 · leading case: Michael Coffey, Jr. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 23 F.4th 332 (4th Cir. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michael Coffey, Jr. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 23 F.4th 332 (4th Cir. 2022). “See 49 C.F.R. § 219.103 (a). In fact, Coffey recognized that the letters he submitted did not address these issues, J.”
Michael Coffey, Jr. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. (4th Cir. 2022). “See 49 C.F.R. § 219.103 (a). In fact, Coffey recognized that the letters he submitted did not address these issues, J.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.