Cannabis and Workers' Compensation

Not legal advice

This article is general information, not legal advice. Workers' compensation law is state-specific, changes frequently, and turns on facts unique to each claim. If you are an injured worker, employer, or provider, talk to a licensed attorney in your state. Last verified: June 2024.

The two questions that matter

Cannabis intersects workers' compensation in two distinct ways, and courts treat them separately:

1. Reimbursement. If an injured worker uses medical cannabis to treat a compensable injury, must the employer or its insurer pay for it the way they would pay for an opioid or physical therapy?
2. Intoxication defense. If a worker is injured on the job and tests positive for THC, can the employer deny benefits on the theory that the worker was impaired and the injury was self-caused?

States have answered these questions inconsistently, and a state that says "yes" to one may say "no" to the other.

Reimbursement: who pays for medical cannabis

There is no federal rule requiring workers' comp insurers to pay for medical cannabis, and insurers routinely argue that doing so would force them to violate the federal Controlled Substances Act by aiding and abetting possession Strong evidence^[1]. State appellate courts have split sharply on whether that argument wins.

States that have ordered reimbursement. New Jersey's Supreme Court held in Hager v. M&K Construction (2021) that the CSA does not preempt a state workers' comp order to reimburse medical cannabis, and that such reimbursement is not "aiding and abetting" a federal crime Strong evidence^[2]. New York, New Mexico, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania have reached similar results through statute or case law ^[3][4].

States that have refused. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court in Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co. (2018) and the Massachusetts SJC in Wright's Case (2022) held that federal preemption or state statute blocks insurer reimbursement Strong evidence^[5][6]. Florida and North Dakota bar reimbursement by statute ^[3].

Silent states. Most states have neither a statute nor a controlling appellate decision. In practice, insurers in those states usually deny cannabis reimbursement and force the worker to litigate.

Positive THC tests and the intoxication defense

Every state workers' comp system allows an employer to deny benefits if intoxication caused the injury, but the burden of proof and the role of drug tests vary widely ^[7].

The scientific problem: THC and its metabolites can be detected in urine days or weeks after use, long after any impairment has faded Strong evidence^[8]. A National Institute of Justice review concluded that THC blood levels correlate poorly with driving impairment, and urine tests are worse ^[8]. This means a positive test is not, by itself, evidence that a worker was impaired at the moment of injury.

States handle this in three broad ways:

• Rebuttable presumption of intoxication. In states like Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas, a positive post-accident drug test creates a presumption that intoxication caused the injury, shifting the burden to the worker to prove otherwise ^[7].
• Employer must prove causation. Other states require the employer to affirmatively show the worker was impaired and that impairment caused the accident — a positive test alone is not enough.
• Medical cannabis carve-outs. A growing number of state medical cannabis statutes prohibit discrimination against registered patients, though most contain exceptions for safety-sensitive work and none clearly override the workers' comp intoxication defense ^[3].

Premium-discount programs that reward "drug-free workplace" certification, which exist in states such as Florida, Georgia, and Ohio, can create additional incentives for employers to test aggressively ^[9].

Federal law hanging over everything

Cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law as of the last verification date, despite a 2024 DEA proposal to reschedule it to Schedule III Strong evidence^[10]. Until rescheduling is finalized — and it had not been as of June 2024 — three federal frictions persist:

1. Preemption arguments. Insurers continue to argue that state reimbursement orders are preempted by the CSA. Courts are split; the U.S. Supreme Court has not resolved it.
2. Tax and banking. IRS §280E and banking restrictions complicate how insurers would even process cannabis payments, though this is a practical rather than doctrinal barrier.
3. ADA and FMLA. Federal disability and leave laws do not currently protect medical cannabis use, which affects related employment questions but not workers' comp directly ^[11].

Rescheduling to Schedule III, if finalized, would weaken but not eliminate the preemption argument, because Schedule III drugs still require FDA approval and a prescription — which state medical cannabis programs do not provide.

Practical notes for workers and employers

For injured workers considering medical cannabis: get the recommendation documented by a treating physician as part of your comp treatment plan, keep receipts, and expect the insurer to deny the first bill regardless of state law. Appeal rights are state-specific and often short.

For employers: understand that in most states a positive THC test is not automatic grounds to deny a claim. Post-accident testing policies should be written with counsel and should distinguish impairment observations from lab results.

For everyone: this area of law is moving. The New Jersey, Maine, and Massachusetts high-court decisions are recent, DEA rescheduling is pending, and several state legislatures introduce cannabis-and-comp bills each session. Assume anything you read — including this article — may be out of date.

Sources

How this page was made