Vol. 7, Issue 10

Find Solutions & Strategies                March 7, 2016 

Up in Smoke: Medical Marijuana

The latest research and impact on injured workers 
In This Issue
A Note From the Editor
Workers' Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis
WCRI Annual Issues Conference: March 10-11, 2016, Boston, MA
up in smoke: medical marijuana
The Latest Research and How It Will Impact Injured Workers

By Robert G. Rassp, Esq.
 
Robert Rassp grayMarijuana is used medicinally or recreationally once a year by at least 128 million people in the world since 2012 according to global epidemiology studies. Growing up in California means easy access to marijuana from elementary school through college and beyond. The "high" from marijuana brings on feelings of euphoria, laughter, great creativity, and deep philosophical conversations about nothing. Finally, there are the "munchies." Does any of this sound familiar to you? The use of medical marijuana has been legal in the State of California since 1996 when the California legislature approved legislation allowing for it. [See Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.7 through 11362.83]. Since then, no regulations have been implemented state wide...read more.
oklahoma high court strikes down state's 180-day cumulative trauma employment rule
In recent comp decisions, Oklahoma Legislature is "0 for 2" 

By Thomas A. Robinson, workcompwriter.com
 
A provision in Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, � 2(14) that disqualifies a claimant from recovering for a "cumulative trauma" injury unless the claimant has completed at least 180 days of "continuous active employment with the employer" is unconstitutional as violative of the Due Process Section of Oklahoma's Constitution [Art. 2, � 7], held the state's Supreme Court yesterday. It was the second time in 3 business days that...read more.
Does torres signal how ok high court will decide constitutionality of opt out?
By Thomas A. Robinson, workcompwriter.com
 
As I reported on Wednesday, in Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma struck down a provision in the state's workers' compensation law that disqualifies a claimant from recovering for a cumulative trauma (CT) injury unless the claimant has completed at least 180 days of "continuous active employment with the employer." It did so, in relevant part, on the basis that Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, � 2(14) creates two classes of employees that have been similarly injured and, without appropriate justification, treats them differently. Last Friday, I noted that in Vasquez v. Dillard's, Inc., a panel of the state's Workers' Compensation Commission found two core sections of the Oklahoma Opt Out law unconstitutional. I noted that the case would almost certainly be reviewed by the state's high court. The obvious question: Does Torres offer any clues as to how the Court will decide the appeal in Vasquez?...read more.
LARSON'S SPOTLIGHT ON RECENT CASES
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., our Feature National Columnist, is the co-author of Larson's Workers' Compensation Law (LexisNexis). 
  
Oklahoma: 180-Day Employment Rule for Cumulative Trauma Injuries Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that a provision in Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, � 2(14) that creates a condition precedent to the filing of a cumulative trauma claim-that the claimant must have completed 180 days of...read more.

Colorado: Telephone Interview/Offer of Employment Subjects North Dakota Company to Colorado's Jurisdiction. Where a North Dakota oil company had no business operations in Colorado, but recruited employees from Colorado (and other states) to work on its North Dakota rigs, it could be held responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage...read more.

Ohio: Court Reiterates "Substantially Certain" Test No Longer Applicable in Intentional Tort Actions. While the action of the employer in utilizing undersized "outriggers" to extend a work platform could be characterized as reckless, the employer was nevertheless entitled to summary judgment in an intentional tort action filed against it by an injured worker...read more.

Florida: No Retaliatory Discharge Damages Available Where Plaintiff Is Not Cleared to Return to Work. Where the record demonstrated that plaintiff was not physically able to work prior to and after the employer's alleged retaliation, and as such, the employer's retaliation did not cause plaintiff any economic damages, a trial court should not have...read more.
national & state news

ENEWSLETTER ARCHIVES

ArchivesTake a deep dive into our past eNewsletters for 2016 and prior...warning - some links to articles may not work...report any linking problems to [email protected].