By Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Presiding Judge, WCAB Los Angeles, California Division of Workers’ Compensation Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this article are solely those of...
Oakland, CA – Migraine Drugs represented less than 1% of all prescriptions dispensed to California injured workers in 2023 but they consumed 4.7% of workers’ compensation drug payments, a nearly...
COMPLEX EMPLOYMENT ISSUES FOR CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION A new softbound supplement to Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law 284 pages PIN #0006801214509 For...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Just when you thought the right of “due process” was on the brink of destruction, the legislature...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Over the past several decades California has implemented broad legislative...
The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in a split decision involving two companion cases, held the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 801-971, preempts an order made pursuant to the state’s Workers’ Compensation Law requiring an employer to reimburse an injured employee for the cost of medical cannabis used to treat a work-related injury. The majority said the state could not force an employer to facilitate an employee’s unlawful possession of cannabis (illegal under federal law), either through accommodations in the workplace or with the employee’s purchase of the controlled substance. The majority also held the state’s Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to determine whether federal law preempts Minnesota law when it comes to medical marijuana for injured workers.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law(LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Musta v. Mendota Heights Dental Ctr., 965 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.06.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.