Connect with us

Cannabis News

Missouri Court Orders Officials To Award Marijuana Business Licenses Amid Application Scoring Flaws

Published

9 minutes ago

on

“The department’s scoring criteria and scorers’ decisions were based on the subjective ratings of the scorers. This fundamental flaw tainted the entire scoring process.”

By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent

A Missouri appeals court has issued a sweeping rebuke of the state’s marijuana licensing process, ordering regulators to issue Hippos LLC licenses to 13 facilities after 2019 scoring was inconsistent and, in one case, after a grader had never established the ratings.

A unanimous verdict is issued after a few weeks A rigorous state audit found the same errors-irregular scoring, poor documentation and a process so opaque that the integrity of the results was in doubt.

Last week’s decision by the Missouri Southern District Court of Appeals does more than revive Hippos’ longstanding challenge over denied cultivation, manufacturing and dispensary licenses. It also undercuts the methodology Missouri’s Administrative Hearing Board has used to resolve cannabis licensing disputes and raises new questions about hundreds of potential rulings in nearly 850 appeals filed by unsuccessful applicants.

Lisa Cox, spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, which oversees the cannabis program, told The Independent that the agency is “evaluating all options” in terms of appealing the decision.

Hippos officials could not be reached for comment.

As the Missouri Department of Health and Aging Services worked to build the state’s multibillion-dollar industry framework in 2019, it hired Nevada-based Wise Health Solutions to source nearly 2,000 applications.

“In each of Hippo’s applications, the same answers to the same question received consistent scores in many cases,” Judge Jeffrey Bates wrote in the ruling. “This should never have happened if Wise’s scorers had followed the instructions given. Neither the department nor Wise did anything to correct this situation.”

The Hippos lawsuit challenged requests for denials of two cultivation, six manufacturing and five dispensary licenses.

The first stop to appeal the denied applications was with the Administrative Hearing Board, which tried to recover Hippos’ applications by choosing the most common score for the questions the company challenged.

The three appeals judges found the commission’s approach to reinstatement “completely flawed”.

“The raw scores do not provide evidence of the intent of the scorers, as there is no note explaining why the scores were given,” the ruling said. “The conflict of these unexplained scores cannot be reconciled by assuming that the most common score for a given answer is correct.”

The justices agreed with Hippos that the commission’s decisions affirming the state’s denial of the company’s requests were “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable” and that those decisions were not supported by competent and substantial evidence at all.

The case was remanded to the circuit court, with the lower court ordering the department to “grant Hippos the requested cultivation, manufacturing and dispensary facility licenses.”

No rejection

A major blow to the state’s defense, the judges said, was that Hippos provided two credible witnesses who testified that the petition should have received higher scores, and the judges believed the state did not back down.

The experts were cannabis consultants who collectively prepared 83 applications in Missouri, the ruling says, and more than half of their clients’ applications successfully received licenses.

“The Department offered no rebuttal to Hippos’ expert testimony and presented no other testimony as to why Hippos should not have been given the higher score that the experts testified to,” the ruling states.

In its response to State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick’s report released last month by the department, it argued that the board had conducted a “thorough review” of the scoring evidence and heard from many experts on hundreds of appeals.

Cox said the Hippos case was one of the first the commission heard in the process of reviewing the department’s licensing decisions.

“The information the Southern District is seeking – expert testimony supporting the department’s position – has been provided in all of the following cases and supports the Administrative Hearing Board’s decision in the Hippos case,” he said in an email to The Independent.

The department’s audit response listed several cases in which the commission ruled in favor of the department, and in at least one other case, the commission used the same methodology that an appeals court last week called “flawed.”

No notes, no evidence

Hippos challenged the scores given to various questions in the application.

The judge had a hard time justifying the scores without seeing the grader’s notes on why they made them.

“After concluding that it was necessary to re-score Hippos’ applications due to the inconsistencies noted by the commission, the commission stated that it was looking for ‘evidence’ that reflected the subjective evaluation of the scorers,” the ruling stated. “Obviously, any notes on a scorer’s reasons for giving a particular score would be helpful to demonstrate consistency.”

Without notice, the ruling said the board’s decision to use the old sheet music was “inventive.”

The lack of notice comes from an instruction in Wise’s training manual, the ruling said, pointing to the lines: “Don’t write anything you don’t want everyone to read. Past versions (something deleted) can be found(.) Adhere to this axiom: Say and forget; write and regret.”

The handbook reminded them that e-mails, memos, or other written materials could be discovered if any scores were challenged in court.

During the audit, Fitzpatrick also said those sentences and the lack of note-taking were problematic. In response to the audit, the department said reading the sentences on its own “does not consider that language in the context of the rest of the training manual,” and raters were encouraged to take notes.

In the lawsuit, Hippos also successfully challenged the scorer’s credentials, something they had tried and failed to do before the commission in other cases.

The ruling stated that Wise was required to ensure that each scorer had the experience and background to perform their assigned role. In the case of the woman who got the grades Hippos challenged, “there is nothing in the record to show that that requirement was met.” The woman did not list or describe any experience or background in the cannabis industry or business evaluation or analysis, the ruling said.

However, the department has argued that he is a university professor with good research skills in the entire case. In a 2024 brief, the department noted that it also graded three other questions about Hippos applications.

“However, Hippos does not criticize the scoring of these questions,” he said short the states “Because they gave each of them a score of 10.”

The appeals court was not convinced.

Unanimous court the verdictAlong with Fitzpatrick’s audit is a sweeping assessment of how Missouri has issued licenses that launched its legal marijuana market. It also raises broader questions about other cases in which the Administrative Hearing Board has relied on similar methods to review disputed application scores.

“The board correctly concluded that the department’s scoring criteria and scorers’ decisions were based on the subjective assessments of the scorers,” the ruling states. “This fundamental error tainted the entire scoring process.”

This story was first published by the Missouri Independent.

Photo elements courtesy of the user rawpixel and Philip Steffan.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cannabis News

Demand for medical cannabis continues to grow

Published

1 minute ago

on

March 22, 2026

By











West Virginians’ demand for medical cannabis continues to grow

Meanwhile, the national conversation reveals an ongoing debate about the value of cannabis, with a new presidential executive order and a New York Times editorial pointing in opposite directions. A WVU Medicine addiction specialist shared some resources on the issues behind that conversation.

In Morgantown, a new medical cannabis dispensary recently opened at Earl Core and Hartman Run roads: Country Grown Cannabis. That brought the dispensary count in Morgantown to eight, with three in Westover, Kingwood, Fairmont and one in White Hall.

And for West Virginia, most data provided by the state’s Office of Medical Cannabis have admitted 35,202 patients in December 2025: a slight decrease from October 2025, when the number was 35,598; but higher than the 34,003 in our previous report in September 2024.

Sales revenue varies from month to month, according to the Transparency Project – a national data source used by the OMC. As of August 2024, revenue was $8.39 billion. Most recently, in October 2025, it was $8.09 million; and in December, 7.97 million dollars.

Read more at Dominion Position










Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Sulfur’s key role in plant nutrition

Published

1 day ago

on

March 21, 2026

By

Sulfur plays a crucial role in plant nutrition from a biochemical point of view, especially in the synthesis of amino acids and proteins. “In fact, it is a key element in the synthesis of basic compounds such as methionine, cysteine ​​and glutathione,” Afepasa explained.

“Methionine serves as a precursor to several molecules that are essential in plant growth and stress regulation. Cysteine ​​provides structural support for proteins and contributes to the antioxidant defense of plants. Glutathione, one of the most powerful antioxidants, participates in detoxification and protects cells from oxidative damage, in favor of general metabolic stability.”

© Afepasa

In terms of availability, different forms of sulfur behave differently in the soil. “Elemental sulfur acts as a medium and long-term reserve, as it must first be converted into sulfates by microbial activity before being absorbed by plants. This conversion process makes the supply slower and more permanent. On the other hand, sulfates can be used immediately by plants, they offer a quick response but are more prone to leaching losses, especially in light soil or intensive irrigation.” Afepasa’s technological innovation helps to overcome these traditional limitations.

Technologies such as Sultech improve sulfur efficiency through orthorhombic crystallography and smaller particle size, increasing reactivity and rapid soil transformation. This ensures a faster availability of nutrients with immediate and lasting effects.

© Afepasa

Sulfur as a biostimulant
In addition to its nutritional role, sulfur functions as a biostimulant. “Its presence improves the microbiological activity of the soil, especially the microorganisms that convert nutrients into a form available to plants. At the same time, by contributing to the synthesis of compounds such as glutathione, it helps strengthen plant defenses and increases tolerance to abiotic stresses, such as drought, salinity or extreme temperatures.”

“The effect of sulfur also affects how other nutrients behave in the soil. Its interaction with nitrogen improves nitrogen uptake, especially in high-demand crops, thereby maximizing the efficiency of nitrogen fertilization. Sulfur also helps dissolve phosphorus and micronutrients that may be locked in the soil, making them more accessible to plant roots.”

© Afepasa

Improvement of the physico-chemical properties of the soil
Finally, regarding the improvement of the soil, Afepasa emphasized that formulations based on sulfur are essential to solve physical-chemical imbalances. “Products developed with our advanced Sultech technology can displace salts in saline-sodic soils, reducing electrical conductivity and creating a more suitable environment for root growth. They are also effective in correcting the alkaline pH of the wet bulb, helping to restore optimal conditions for nutrient absorption.”

© AfepasaFor more information:
Afepasa
Ignasi Casajuana Reyes
Area Manager Latam and responsible for digital marketing
Email: (email protected)
https://afepasa.com/

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Nebraska Legislature Approves Bill To Protect Doctors Who Recommend Medical Marijuana

Published

1 day ago

on

March 21, 2026

By

“Today is a small step forward, but we are facing terrible prospects.”

Zach Wendling, Nebraska Examiner

Health care Practitioners wishing to recommend medical cannabis to patients in Nebraska They are one step closer to having legal protections to write the recommendation in the face of opposition from some state leaders.

The Legislature voted 30-7 Friday to advance House Bill 933 by state Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha. It would protect medical providers from criminal, civil or disciplinary penalties “merely” for providing a written recommendation or stating that, in their professional opinion, the potential benefits of cannabis outweigh the potential harms.

“It would create a step forward and hope and opportunity for these families who have worked so hard, waited so long and would like to have that conversation with their doctors and then get some relief,” Cavanaugh said during the discussion.

Legislators clarified that the practitioner would not be protected from malpractice or professional negligence claims, such as failing to evaluate a patient or follow an appropriate standard of care. A Cavanaugh amendment passed 35-4, as did a similar amendment from the House Health and Human Services Committee on a 38-4 vote.

State Sen. Brian Hardin Gering, chairman of the HHS Committee, opposed LB 933 in committee, but said the added language was an “important clarification.”

“Practitioners are protected by the recommendation itself, but they are responsible for conducting a thorough and appropriate assessment of the patient before making it,” Hardin said.

“Professional malpractice or negligence” is defined in law as failure to use “ordinary and reasonable care, skill and knowledge normally possessed and exercised by members of his profession engaged in similar activities in the same or similar countries.”

In the 2024 general election, 71% of voters supported a recommendation to legalize the possession of 5 ounces of medical cannabis, and 67% of voters created the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission.

Reaching 33 votes

Similar protections for providers were included in a bill offering a broader regulatory framework proposed in 2025, LB 677 by state Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair. The bill failed 23-22, missing the 33 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Cavanaugh’s LB 933 would also need 33 votes to change voter-approved laws, as required by the Nebraska Constitution.

There is still a way to get there, with 12 senators absent or absent from Friday’s vote. One of them, State Sen. Rick Holdcroft of Bellevue, who was “absent, did not vote,” supported LB 677 10 months ago but did not vote to advance LB 933. He is the only supporter of LB 677 on that ship.

Holdcroft helped get LB 677 out of the General Affairs Committee as committee chair. He said his biggest concern last year was funding for the commission, which this year is being addressed by state budget adjustments LB 1071 and a separate General Affairs bill, LB 1235.

Holdcroft noted that the Medical Cannabis Board has just completed licensing four growers, and indicated that it could be eight months to a year before there is enough of a crop to manufacture and later distribute.

“To start giving immunity to doctors who are going to make recommendations for a product that we won’t even have for a year is, I think, a little premature,” Holdcroft said.

Cavanaugh, Hansen and other advocates say the protections are necessary for a state program to exist. So far, they said, no state doctor has made a recommendation, in part because of fear of retribution, such as from law enforcement. And without protection, supporters worry that there will be no patients able to access board-licensed facilities.

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) rallied law enforcement against Hansen’s LB 677 in 2025 and spoke out against the health care professionals’ language. His office did not formally oppose LB 933, nor did the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services.

“The preponderance of scientific evidence”

State Sen. Jared Storm of David City, who led the opposition to LB 677 last year, introduced an amendment to Cavanaugh’s bill requiring the health care professional’s recommendation to be “based on the preponderance of current scientific evidence.”

Storm argued that the “simple and straightforward addition” was rooted in the Hippocratic Oath “to do no harm.”

“If you’re against this amendment, you’re in favor of recreational marijuana,” Storm said. “If you’re in favor of my correction, you see this as medicine.”

Cavanaugh argued the opposite, that LB 933 It would protect advocates and not encourage them to rally in favor of recreational marijuana because of delays in access to medical marijuana. Hansen made a similar request last year.

“If you don’t want a recreational program, we have to make our medical program functional,” Cavanaugh said.

Storm, Hansen and Cavanaugh said they know of no doctors nationwide who have been sued for malpractice or negligence for recommending medicinal cannabis.

‘Moral hazard’ or ‘dangerous road’?

State Sens. Tanya Storer of Whitman and Bob Andersen of Sarpy County argued, as Storm did, that the debate was about public safety rather than medical cannabis.

Storer said, “Immunity creates moral hazard. When there are no consequences, there is less incentive to exercise caution.”

Cavanaugh and Hansen were concerned about the long-term effects of Ekaitz’s proposal, arguing that it “muddies the water.” Hansen said we could “go back and bite ourselves in the ass” over some drugs, such as Ivermectin, used in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cavanaugh said he spoke with the Nebraska Medical Association and the association’s malpractice provider, and Cavanaugh told him that Storm’s amendment would “create more uncertainty.”

Hansen, the former chairman of the HHS Committee, said he understood where Storm was coming from and was aware of Storm’s views on medical cannabis. Hansen said using the “preponderance of scientific evidence” would rule out more than 38 percent of the drugs dispensed off-label.

“I think we’re going down a very dangerous path in the future in terms of micromanaging how a medical professional can prescribe medication in the future,” Hansen said.

‘A bit of fixer upper’

State Sen. Carolyn Bosn of Lincoln, a former prosecutor, clarified with Cavanaugh that nothing in LB 933 would protect a practitioner’s license if it went against their professional judgment. He said the legal standard is based on someone’s education, training and experience. He accepted protections.

Storm said one problem was the difference between a “recommendation” and a “prescription” for medical cannabis. For example, he noted, opioids are tracked under the state’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Hansen proposed using this system in LB 677.

Hardin, who ultimately did not vote on advancing LB 933, said he supported Ekaitz’s amendment. He said they’ve studied marijuana “since they were crossing a mile from my house on the Oregon Trail,” and with dozens of states legalizing marijuana, how to ask that question “in the safest way possible.”

“I think it’s a little bit of a fix, and I think we’re getting there,” Hardin said.

The storm amendment failed 22-19. They may try again at a future debate, as five senators were absent from the state Capitol Friday, including Storer.

‘Small step forward’

Crista Eggers of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana said she was encouraged by the progress of LB 933, but some of the debate, especially around Storm’s amendment, shows continued opposition to a functioning state program.

“It’s a small step forward today, but we face daunting prospects as this bill moves forward to select file and final reading,” Eggers said after the vote.

“Nebraskas have had few victories in this decades-long battle,” he continued. “Today is one of them.”

LB 933 has two more rounds of debate before it, with 33 votes it can send to Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen for his signature.

Vote to advance bill 933 related to medicinal cannabis

Yes (30): John Arch, Carolyn Bosn, Eliot Bostar*, Tom Brandt*, John Cavanaugh*, Machaela Cavanaugh*, Stan Clouse*, Danielle Conrad*, Wendy DeBoer*, Barry DeKay, Myron Dorn*, George Dungan*, John Fredrickson*, Dunixi Guereca*, Ben Hansen*, Jana Hughes*, Terrell*, Margo Juguez*, Margo Juguez McKinney*, Fred Meyer, Glen Meyer*, Jason Prokop*, Dan Quick*, Jane Raybould*, Merv Riepe, Victor Rountree*, Rita Sanders, Ashley Spivey, Brad von Gillern and Dave Wordekemper*.

No (7): Bob Andersen, Rob Clements, Mike Jacobson, Kathleen Kauth, Loren Lippincott, Dave Murman and Jared Storm.

Presented, not voted (7): Christy Armendariz, Beau Ballard, Brian Hardin, Rick Holdcroft*, Teresa Ibach, Mike Moser and Tony Sorrentino.

Sorry, no vote (5): Rob Dover, Bob Hallstrom, Dan Lonowski, Tanya Storer and Paul Strommen.

* Voted in favor of a broader scope of medical cannabis proposed in 2025 (Legislative Bill 677).

This story was first published by the Nebraska Examiner.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media