Top court to decide on issue of medical pot and workers’ comp
By
New Hampshire Union Leader
On one side are attorneys for an injured worker who say he is entitled to the coverage because workers' compensation operates differently than health insurance, and the Legislature did not exempt workers comp carriers from medical marijuana claims.
Lawyers for the insurance company, with the support of the N.H. Compensation Appeals Board, argue they would face prosecution under federal law if they paid for a federally illegal drug.
Four of the five state Supreme Court justices recently heard the appeal of
He is considered permanently disabled, having undergone several back surgeries, and was for years prescribed opioids for pain relief, which were fully covered by his workers compensation claim.
By 2015, however, he had developed a stomach condition that made regular opiate use difficult. When the state's medical marijuana dispensaries opened in 2016, he was certified for the program by his primary care provider.
He purchased 14 grams of therapeutic cannabis at Sanctuary ATC in
Decision appealed
Panaggio appealed that decision to the 32-member Compensation Appeals Board, which held last year that his use of therapeutic cannabis is medically necessary and related to his work injury.
But by a two-to-one margin, the board declined to order reimbursement, citing federal law that still makes marijuana illegal and the state's exemption for health insurance companies in the Therapeutic Cannabis Act.
In a highly unusual move, the minority on the board issued a written dissent. Panaggio, represented by the law firm of Shaheen and Gordon in
"If we are ordered to pay, we would face the untenable choice of adhering to this court's order and knowingly violating federal law every time that employee purchases and uses marijuana," said
While all states with legal medical marijuana have a carve-out for health insurance companies, some also explicitly added workers compensation to the exemption, but
"States that bar reimbursement of medical marijuana specifically for injured workers, rather than for all purposes, have done so explicitly," according to Panaggio's attorney,
No record of prosecution
According to O'Connor, the claim of the insurance company that it could face federal prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act is not supported by public record or precedent.
"For nearly a decade, the
Martin argued that while the Obama administration turned a blind eye to enforcement in legal marijuana states, "the current administration under
Tough questioning
Questioning by the four justices (
Newly appointed Associate Justice
Associate Justice
The court is not expected to issue a decision until later in the year.
Courts Health State Government
___
(c)2018 The New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.)
Visit The New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.) at www.unionleader.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
OPINION: By the numbers, why Roe v. Wade will probably stand
No cause discovered yet for Holland Heights fire
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News