Diving letter:
- The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a contractor must pay the medical marijuana bills of a former worker who was injured under the State Employee Compensation Act in the workplace, and that doing so does not make the company criminally liable, even though marijuana does is still illegal at the federal level under the Regulated Substances Act.
- The April 13 ruling upheld an appeal ruling last year asking M&K Construction to pay for the medical marijuana its former employee Vincent Hager uses to treat leg and back pain after an industrial accident in 2001, when a truck poured cement on him. resulting in a herniated disc, according to court documents.
- The court ruled because M&K was asked to pay the worker’s pot and that the company had appealed the decision. The company has not been shown to deliberately endorse and favor Hager’s marijuana possession in contrast to the federal CSA. “Hager’s reimbursement under a court mandate can hardly be interpreted as an M & K ‘elect[ing]”To aid Hager’s possession of marijuana in violation of federal law,” Lee A. Solomon, associate justice, wrote in the court’s decision. “Rather, it is forced to do so by the command.”
Dive Insight:
The case could have far-reaching implications for other employers in New Jersey – and possibly other states as well – by simultaneously getting to grips with employers for workers’ medical marijuana costs while providing legal protection to companies if they will willingly against it Violate federal law.
A total of 36 states and four territories now have medical marijuana laws on the books, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In the New Jersey case, M&K Construction argued that Hager’s injury was not covered by the New Jersey Compassionate Use Act, which legalized medical marijuana use in 2010, as the law did not have private health insurers or government medical assistance programs to cover the costs prescribe medical marijuana. However, the court ruled that since it was in fact a worker’s compensation claim, M&K could potentially be required to pay Hager’s pot, which costs around $ 616 per month.
According to court records, Hager had numerous operations and was prescribed opioids after the accident, which he eventually became addicted to. A doctor noted that he qualified for medical marijuana in 2016, which ultimately helped him quit taking the opioids.
Opioid use has become a relentless issue in the construction industry in recent years. The physical wear and tear of construction work on workers’ bodies can lead to increased reliance on pain medication, and construction workers have been found to be more risky outside of work than workers in other industries.
Workers’ compensation attorney Jennifer Brennan, a partner at Chartwell Law in Moorestown, New Jersey, wrote in a post on JDSupra that the combination of medical marijuana and opioids could expand the effects of this case even further.
“This latest decision has a significant impact on New Jersey employers,” Brennan wrote. “It is likely that there will be other such assignments forcing employers to reimburse medical marijuana if … an employee provides competent evidence that he or she is able to restore some or all of the employee’s function Heal or alleviate effects of injury. This is likely to happen more often, especially in cases where there is a question of whether medical marijuana is also used to get rid of opioids, as noted in the Hager case. “
Matthew Collins, co-chair of the labor law practice at Brach Eichler in Roseland, New Jersey, said the case could have ramifications beyond the state.
“IIn other states that have legalized medical marijuana, that decision could provide a basis for employers to reimburse medical marijuana for treatment of an employee compensation violation, “Collins wrote in an email to Construction Dive CSA, Collins said It could also be cited in other states to make the argument that “an employer cannot fire an employee who tests positive for medical marijuana use if such use is under state law to treat the worker’s disability was permissible. “
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include comments from Attorney Matthew Collins.
Comments are closed.