Geaney: Excessive Court docket Settles Jurisdiction, Medical Marijuana Circumstances| Employees Compensation Information

By John H. Geaney

Wednesday, April 21, 2021 | 0

We are a few weeks in April and the New Jersey Supreme Court has already considered two extremely important questions for workers’ compensation practitioners, employers, and promoters.

John H. Geaney

The first ruling was announced on April 1, when the Supreme Court decided not to obtain certification in relation to Anesthesia Assocs. of Morristown, PA v Weinstein Supply Corp. This means that the Appeals Department’s unreported decision addresses jurisdiction issues in petitions for medical claims.

There are hundreds of medical claims petitions in New Jersey where the only contact with the state of New Jersey is the location of the medical procedure. Anesthesia Associates of Morristown included two consolidated cases. In the first case, the petitioner lived, worked, and injured in Pennsylvania and even filed a petition in Pennsylvania.

The medical procedure took place in New Jersey, and the medical provider filed a medical claims application with the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation for additional fees.

In the other case, Surgicare from Jersey City v. Waldbaum, all contacts were in New York state, but the medical procedure again took place in New Jersey. The medical claim application was then filed by the provider in the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation for the remainder of its original fees of $ 252,000.

In both cases, the respective indemnity judges found that there was no jurisdiction in New Jersey because the state had no jurisdiction over the employee’s underlying compensation claim.

The judges rejected the medical claim requests. The Appeals Division reiterated: “Applying these considerations to the two cases before us, we agree with the two compensation judges that there was no discernible claim for work-related injury in either case.”

As a result, the division had no jurisdiction over AAM or SJC’s claims and they were appropriately dismissed, largely for the reasons given by the two indemnification judges.

The medical providers next filed for certification with the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s approach to denying certification is an affirmation of the Appeals Division’s unreported decision. The problem is that unreported decisions are not technically a priority. They do not have to be followed by other judges.

It seems clear that the New Jersey Supreme Court agrees with the arguments put forward by the compensation judges and the appeals division. In all fairness, the decision must be reported to the Appeals Department by the Publications Committee as it solves a hotly contested issue within the department and avoids further appeals.

On April 13, the New Jersey Supreme Court published its ruling in the Vincent Hager v. M & K Construction case. The facts of this case will only be dealt with briefly. The question concerned whether an employer could be asked to reimburse the petitioner for ongoing medical marijuana costs under the New Jersey Compassionate Use Act. The judge ruled in favor of the petitioner and asked the employer to reimburse him.

The appeals department confirmed 2020. The Supreme Court has now confirmed the appeal department’s decision in a very long statement.

The Supreme Court found:

• The Compassionate Use Act cannot require a private health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated with the medicinal use of cannabis, but the term “private health insurer” does not include compensation for workers. Therefore, employers and carriers are not exempt from the statutory obligation to reimburse employees when it comes to employee compensation.
• The court found that there was competent medical evidence to support the argument that medical marijuana can restore some of a worker’s function or, as in Mr Hager’s case, alleviate symptoms such as chronic pain and discomfort. Because of that, the court said medical marijuana could constitute appropriate and necessary care under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act.
• The court devoted most of its ruling to the conflict between the federal controlled substances law, which lists marijuana as a List I drug, and the state’s compassionate use law. More specifically, it was about whether federal law dictates state law regarding reimbursement of medical marijuana costs. The court focused heavily on the recent appropriations of Congressional funds: “Congress banned the DOJ for seven consecutive fiscal years from using funds to interfere with state medical marijuana laws through appropriation drivers.” The court continued, “We are coming concluded that the CSA, as applied to the Compassionate Use Act and the order in question, will be effectively suspended by the youngest Mittelreiter for at least the duration of the federal fiscal year. ”The court added,“ Qualified patients may continue to possess medical marijuana and use, and appropriate compensation orders can be entered while federal agencies continue to enforce the CSA if Congress allows. “
• The court rejected the argument that employers required to reimburse employees for medical marijuana costs violated federal law by aiding and abetting under 18 USC Section 20. To be more specific, M&K alleged that the company was forced to break federal law. The court concluded that there can never be any aid if action is taken based on a court order, including an order in the Workers Compensation Department.

Some other state courts, such as those in Maine and Massachusetts, have gone a different direction than the New Jersey Supreme Court on preliminary ruling. The New Jersey court acknowledged that there is no consensus on this issue among all of the states that have looked at it. Ultimately, this issue could be before the United States Supreme Court.

John H. Geaney is an attorney, executive committee member, and shareholder in Capehart Scatchard, a defense law firm in New Jersey. This post is published with permission from Geaney’s New Jersey Workers’ Comp Blog.