New York, NY: A permanently disabled maritime employee cannot be reimbursed for costs related to his use of medical cannabis products, according to a ruling by judges on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
The petitioner, who possessed a valid recommendation to access medical cannabis under Puerto Rican law, sought reimbursement from both his former employers’ insurance carrier as well as from the federal government pursuant to Section 7 of the Longshore and Harbor’s Workers’ Compensation Act – a federal law providing no-fault, medical, and wage-replacement benefits to maritime employees injured or disabled on US navigable waters or adjoining areas.
The Appellate Court rejected the petitioner’s request because federal law currently defines cannabis as a substance “with no accepted medical use.”
They decided: “Marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance under the CSA [Controlled
Substances Act] unequivocally provides, for purposes of federal law, that it has no accepted medical use. It may very well be the case that the federal government will at some point – perhaps even in the near future – remove marijuana from Schedule I of the CSA. But that is a decision for the political branches of the federal government, not for the judiciary. This Court is obliged to apply the law as it currently stands.”
In December, President Trump issued an executive order directing the US Attorney General to finalize a 2023 recommendation to reclassify botanical cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA. Before issuing the order, Trump said that the federal government must “recognize that marijuana can be legitimate in terms of medical applications.” However, it is not yet known what actions, if any, the AG has taken to comply with Trump’s order.
Several state courts have previously weighed in on matters surrounding whether employees can be compensated for their use of medical cannabis. For example, courts in New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have ruled in favor of employees’ compensation rights, while courts in Massachusetts and Minnesota have ruled against them.
NORML advocates that patients should be eligible to have their medical cannabis-related costs reimbursed by insurance providers. Writing in a 2023 op-ed, NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “Most patients, most physicians, and most state laws view cannabis as a legitimate therapeutic option. Therefore, the millions of Americans who rely upon medical cannabis products ought to be afforded the same entitlements as those who use other conventional medications and therapies. Those privileges should include insurance-provided reimbursement for medical cannabis treatment.”
The case is Luis Peña Garcia v. Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs et al.