On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire again withdrew a claim for compensation for medical marijuana compensation and demanded a better explanation from the State Board of Appeal for Workers' Compensation on its decision to deny it.
The Court called on the Board of Appeal to "articulate the law" in support of its conclusion that it would be contrary to federal law to ask an insurance company to replace medical marijuana. The case is In Re Appeal of Panaggio .
Andrew Panaggio suffered a work-related injury in 1991 and received a settlement in 1997 after his permanent disability grant was approved. He applied for therapeutic marijuana for his ongoing pain, which was approved by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, and handed a receipt for his expense to the workers' compensation insurer CNA Financial Corp.
CNA refused payment because "medical marijuana is not reasonable / necessary or causally related" to his injury
Although the New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board found that Panaggio's use of medical marijuana was "reasonable and medically necessary". The board confirmed the CNA's refusal to replace him because it is "not legal under state or federal law."
In March 201
The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that assistance and participation "requires voluntary participation" and that the insurer's compliance with a court or board order for compensation for Mr Panaggio "would not constitute" voluntary participation.
The Court also rejected the CNA's argument that the claim for compensation for medical marijuana would result in "obstruction", essentially frustrating the Congress' intention "to control and regulate the traffic and use of controlled substances. "The Court held that the high threshold for obstruction had not been reached. Catalog