Must Employers Cover Medical Marijuana Use?

By Cotney Attorneys & Consultants

On Election Day 2020, a number of states passed laws regarding drug use.

Employers scrambled to understand the new regulations surrounding recreational drugs and medical marijuana—and how they would impact their workers. A recent case in New Jersey makes the issue even more complex.

New Jersey Supreme Court Decision

On April 13, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that M&K Construction was required to cover the medical marijuana costs for Vincent Hager, a former employee who was injured on the job in 2001. During that incident, a truck driver accidentally dumped a load of cement on Hager, which resulted in him suffering from a herniated disc. The injury led to chronic leg and back pain, which Hager eventually treated with medical marijuana. This court’s ruling upheld an appellate court decision from 2020.

New Jersey’s Marijuana Laws

New Jersey voters approved recreational use of marijuana in November 2020, but medical marijuana has been legal in the state since the 2010 passage of the Compassionate Use Act. M&K Construction argued that it should not have to pay for medical marijuana because the law does not mandate government assistant programs or private health insurers to cover such expenses. In addition, the company was concerned that paying for Hager’s access to marijuana was in violation of federal law since the drug is still illegal per the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). However, the court ruled that since the medical marijuana use was the result of a workers’ compensation claim, M&K was required to pay for Hager’s marijuana, which cost approximately $616 each month. The court also stated that the company would not be criminally liable for providing access to the drug since it was being ordered to pay for it.

The Road to Litigation

After being injured in 2001, Hager filed for workers’ compensation benefits. M&K denied that claim and noted that the incident was being investigated. Hager filed suit. During a subsequent workers’ compensation trial that began in November 2016, M&K agreed that Hager had suffered a work-related injury while being employed for the company. The judge for that trial determined that Hager was 65% disabled and ordered M&K to reimburse him for medical marijuana costs and related expenses. M&K appealed, but the appellate division upheld the decision in January 2020.

Other Medical Issues

After Hager suffered the injury, he underwent several surgeries and was prescribed opioids. Like many others combatting chronic paid, he became dependent on those painkillers. In 2016, Hager’s doctor determined that he qualified for medical marijuana, and Hager was approved for the program in April 2016. Using medical marijuana enabled Hager to manage his pain and beat his addiction to painkillers. However, the physician noted that Hager would require medical marijuana for the rest of this life.

Implications for Other Employers

At present, 36 states and four territories have laws that regulate medical marijuana use. This ruling from the New Jersey Supreme Court may set a precedence for other cases, requiring employers to cover medical marijuana expenses and protecting them from any perceived federal CSA violations. Some experts believe that there will be more instances of companies being on the hook for medical marijuana costs, especially if its usage helps injured workers overcome opioid addiction. It is also possible that employers will be prohibited from terminating workers who test positive for medical marijuana if the drug is being used to treat a disability.

Employers who are unsure about their rights and obligations in such cases should not hesitate to consult legal counsel. An experienced employment attorney can help them navigate the current murky waters regarding recreational and medical marijuana use.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is for general educational information only. This information does not constitute legal advice, is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as legal advice for your specific factual pattern or situation.