article thumbnail

US Supreme Declines to Review Medical Marijuana Reimbursement Issue

Workers' Compensation

Preemption Issue The question presented is: “Whether the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. preempts a state workers’ compensation order that compels an employer to reimburse an employee for the cost of marijuana used in response to pain arising from a work-related injury.” 801 et seq.,

Medical 64
article thumbnail

US Supreme Court to Conference Medical Marijuana Preemption Case

Workers' Compensation

Preemption Issue The question presented is: “Whether the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. preempts a state workers’ compensation order that compels an employer to reimburse an employee for the cost of marijuana used in response to pain arising from a work-related injury.” 801 et seq.,

Medical 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Innovation is Necessary to Meet the Challenge of COVID in 2022

Workers' Compensation

A recent study provides a potential opportunity for employers and insurance companies to reduce their risk exposure through early sequencing and treatment proactively. Background The workers’ compensation system faces an enormous challenge in 2022 as the novel consequences of the most recent surge of SARS-CoV-2 infection engulf the nation.

article thumbnail

Are Workers’ Comp Insurers ready for what comes next in the COVID-19 crisis?

Workers' Compensation Perspectives

Rapid, accurate and consistent decisions will depend on the degree of agility workers’ compensation systems can achieve on these potentially complex cases and constrained operating environments. A special concern: Mental Injuries Workers’ compensation systems routinely accept psychological impacts as a result of injury.

article thumbnail

Medical Marijuana Within the Context of Workers’ Compensation Claims

The Workcomp Writer

The Court indicated that because the Board had not cited any legal authority for its conclusion, much less identify a federal statute that exposed the insurance carrier to criminal prosecution, it would vacate the Board’s determination that the reimbursement would violate federal law. 484 (2020)]. It had chosen not to do so.