By Hon. Robert G. Rassp, author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis) Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this article...
Oakland, CA – The decline in opioid use in California workers’ compensation has outpaced the decline among the state’s overall population according to a new California Workers’...
By Julius Young, Richard Jacobsmeyer, Barry Bloom, Editors-in-Chief for Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Handbook [Note: This article is excerpted from the upcoming 2025 edition of Herlick...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Practitioners beware! Death benefit trials often raise intricate and unique evidentiary conundrums. Obtaining...
Oakland, CA – California’s State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) rose nearly 3.8 percent in the year ending March 31, 2024, which will result in an increase in California workers’ compensation...
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, in a case of first impression, affirmed a workers’ compensation judge’s finding that an employer was required to reimburse its employee for the employee’s use of medical marijuana dispensed under the state’s Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (MMA). The appellate court found there was no conflict between the MMA and federal law in the form of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.S. § 841) in as much as the employer was not required “to possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana,” but only to reimburse the former employee for his purchase of medical marijuana. Important to the court’s ruling was the fact that the injured employee had demonstrated the severity and chronic nature of his pain, his attempts to unsuccessfully alleviate the pain with multiple surgeries and medical modalities, and the efficacy of the prescribed medical marijuana. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the use of medical marijuana was reasonable and necessary.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the 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 Hager v. M&K Construction, 2020 N.J. Super. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 13, 2019)
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.