It is disappointing to report that a Western PA WCJ recently denied my client's request for MMJ reimbursement. My client, Ronette Schepis, was injured in 1992 and underwent multiple surgeries on her left knee.
Yesterday NJ Superior Court directed a workers' compensation carrier to reimburse an injured worker for treatment with medical marijuana. The court refused to conclude that the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) preempted New Jersey's Medical Marijuana and Workers' Compensation Statutes.
Two cases in Pennsylvania will test the limits of our Medical Marijuana Law's anti-discrimination provision. The provision states that employers may not refuse to hire an employee or discharge an employee because of their status as a registered medical marijuana patient.
You are receiving this email because you are a client, friend of the firm or interested in this topic. Thank you for your support of our office and mission to have medical marijuana become a treatment covered by workers' compensation.
I am pleased to report that my Lancaster County MMJ reimbursement test case has settled. The carrier agreed to pay my client a significant (five-digit) lump sum based upon the anticipated monthly cost of medical marijuana purchases for the remainder of his life.
You may have seen articles on the internet stating that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ordered a comp carrier to reimburse an injured worker for his out-of-pocket MMJ costs, reversing the lower court. The truth is a lot more nuanced.
I will be speaking on 'Medical Marijuana and Workers' Comp" Sticky Situations" for the Philadelphia Bar Association- Workers' Compensation Section Lunch & Learn CLE. I currently represent (5) injured workers across the state who are seeking to have their carrier reimburse their out-of-pocket expenses for medical marijuana.
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.