Supreme Court urged to 'just say no' to workers' comp marijuana cases
The U.S. Solicitor General likened cannabis reimbursement through workers’ comp to subsidizing federal crimes.
The U.S. Solicitor General’s Office on May 16, 2022, urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to jump into the debate over whether workers’ compensation should cover medical marijuana costs.
In a 19-page amicus brief, written at the invitation of the high court, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted that while dozens of states in recent years have eased restrictions on marijuana’s use and sale for medical reasons, the drug remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.
“Petitioners intentionally possessed marijuana, which is a crime under federal law even if permitted under state law,” Prelogar wrote. “A state law that requires a third party to subsidize such conduct is preempted by federal law.”
At issue are two cases brought by Minnesota workers who use medical marijuana for workplace injuries and want those costs reimbursed by their employers under the state’s workers’ compensation laws. Workers’ compensation judges originally granted their requests, but the Minnesota Supreme Court ultimately reversed those decisions.
“If states could enforce laws compelling third parties to subsidize federal crimes, they could directly undermine congressional determinations,” Prelogar wrote. “For example, no legal principle would preclude a state from requiring private employers to reimburse the use of other federally prohibited products or substances, such as LSD and other psychedelic drugs, based on perceived benefits.”
A majority of U.S. states have now legalized or decriminalized some form of cannabis use. That reality has seeped into the workplace, where employers are grappling with whether and how to test employees for marijuana, as well as how to accommodate workers who are legally using marijuana.
States have addressed the workers’ compensation question differently. Maine and Minnesota courts, for example, have invalidated workers’ compensation orders for medical marijuana. Judges in New Hampshire and New Jersey, however, have upheld them.
Attorneys for plaintiff Susan Musta, a dental hygienist who injured her neck on the job, urged the Supreme Court to “provide crucial guidance” on the workers’ compensation issue.
“This case is an ideal vehicle to resolve the conflict of authority. In the workers’ compensation proceedings,” attorneys with Mottaz & Sisk Injury Law and Jenner & Block wrote in Musta’s cert petition. “The parties stipulated that petitioner’s use of medical marijuana complied with state law and was reasonable, medically necessary, and causally related to her work injury, as required to support an award of workers’ compensation.”
Prelogar called the differing legal opinions among the state courts “limited and recent,” with three of the four decisions coming just last year.
“And it is unclear how many additional states interpret their state workers’ compensation schemes, standing alone, to require such reimbursements, or what the limits of such a state-law reimbursement obligation might be,” Prelogar wrote. “Given the novelty of the issues, this court would benefit from further development of the relevant preemption questions in the lower courts before potentially addressing them itself,” she wrote.
Additional issues surrounding medical marijuana and workers’ compensation should be left to the legislative and executive branches, Prelogar wrote.
Related: