By 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 treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Who doesn’t agree with the fact that “[w]e should not interpret or apply statutory language...
When do the exclusivity provisions of Labor Code section 3600 permit an action for law at damages? By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’...
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.