Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Wednesday, Aug 10, 2022
Mugglehead Magazine
Alternative investment news based in Vancouver, B.C.


US Supreme Court seeks input from solicitor general on medical cannabis workers’ compensation

Two Minnesota workers were denied coverage at the state level due to federal prohibition

US Supreme Court seeks input from Solicitor General on medical cannabis workers' compensation
Photo by Sebmol via Wikimedia Commons

The United States Supreme Court is asking for input from the fourth-highest-ranking official in the Department of Justice to decide if medical cannabis should be reimbursed under workers’ compensation insurance, given the plant’s federally illegal status.

On Friday, DOJ lawyers discussed a pair of cases related to Minnesota employees who appealed a decision by their state’s high court denying them coverage for medical cannabis expenses after being injured on the job.

In October, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals passed their appeal, but Minnesota’s supreme court reversed it because of cannabis’s illegality at the federal level.

Both the cases were brought to federal court. DOJ lawyers concluded the cases are still pending, and need input from the Biden Administration’s Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.

“The solicitor general is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States,” reads an entry next to both cases in the Supreme Court’s list of pending cases.

The first case involves Susan Musta, who was injured at her workplace, a dental center. She filed a Supreme Court petition in November after Minnesota judges determined she wouldn’t be reimbursed.

Activist group Empire State NORML, along with the New York City Cannabis Industry Association and the Hudson Valley Cannabis Industry Association, urged the court to look into the case via an amici curiae, a friend-of-the-court brief from a third party that assists with information, expertise and insight.

The second case involves Daniel Bierbach, who works at an all-terrain vehicle company. After his appeal was denied, he submitted a petition to review the decision by the state’s lower court. Bierbach argued an employer doesn’t need to possess, manufacture or distribute the cannabis products, but only provide compensation. So, according to him, it wouldn’t be a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

Read more: US Supreme Court judge calls federal cannabis prohibition ‘contradictory’

Read more: New Jersey court rules Pepsi must cover medical cannabis costs

Last May, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that Pepsi Bottling Co. (Nasdaq: PEP) had to reimburse a former employee for medical cannabis costs related to his work-related back injury.

In October, New Hampshire’s high court also ruled out that medical cannabis should be reimbursed despite federal prohibition.

Federal cannabis prohibition doesn’t make much sense anymore, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in a statement last June, and the federal government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.

“This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.”


Follow Mugglehead on Twitter

Like Mugglehead on Facebook

Follow Natalia Buendia Calvillo on Twitter

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You May Also Like


Novel extraction method and precise extract dosing gadget said to become game changers for cannabis industry


This April, Pure Extracts Manufacturing Corp. received an IPO from the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation Cannabis for its vapes and hemp-based edibles


The study was the largest of its kind to date, examining the impact of medical cannabis on anxiety and depression in 7,362 Canadian patients


The oil is now available at the Jardin, Vegas Tree House, and Exhale pot shops in Las Vegas