One-Hit Wonders

Pennsylvania Court Holds that It Is “High Time” Employers Reimburse Employees Who Use Medical Marijuana to Treat Work Related Injuries

Published

2 years ago

April 4, 2023

admin

On March 17, 2023, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision regarding employee use of medical marijuana in the workers’ compensation context. The decision in Fegley v. Firestone Tire & Rubber (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.) addresses an issue of first impression. The court held that an employer’s failure to reimburse an employee’s out-of-pocket costs for medical marijuana to treat his work-related injury was a violation of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (“WC Act”). The decision is significant for Pennsylvania employers. Given this decision, Pennsylvania employers could be subject to penalties under the WC Act if they do not reimburse employees for medical marijuana use—even though marijuana is illegal under federal law and cannot be prescribed by any doctors.

CASE BACKGROUND

The employee in the underlying case sustained a work-related injury to his back. After decades of taking prescribed opiates and narcotics, the employee began using medical marijuana at the recommendation of his doctor. His pain level improved through use of marijuana, to the point that he was able to wean himself off of the prescription drugs. An entity responsible for evaluating the appropriateness of treatment for work-related injuries under the state workers’ compensation system found that the employee’s medical marijuana use was reasonable and necessary. However, the employer refused to reimburse the employee for the cost of his medical marijuana treatment.

The employee filed a claim seeking penalties for the employer’s alleged violation of the WC Act by failing to pay for the cost of his medical marijuana use. The employer prevailed at the agency level on the grounds that the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) says that coverage is not required for medical marijuana and requiring an employer to fund marijuana use would violate federal law and did not violate the WC Act. The employee then appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

DECISION ON APPEAL

In a 5-2 decision, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania disagreed with the agency ruling below, and thus reversed and remanded. In reaching its decision, the Court analyzed the contours of, and the relationship between, the WC Act, the MMA, and related federal law.

Starting with the basics, the Court observed that the WC Act requires reimbursement to employees for reasonable and necessary medical expenses resulting from work-related injuries. The Court also observed that the MMA deems marijuana to be a legitimate therapy for treatment of medical issues under proper circumstances. And the MMA seeks to protect individuals who use medical marijuana by stating that medical marijuana patients shall not be “denied any right or privilege, . . . solely for lawful use of medical marijuana . . .”

The MMA, however, also has a section entitled “Conflict”, which provides that “[n]othing in [the MMA] shall be construed to require an insurer or a health plan, whether paid for by Commonwealth funds or private funds, to provide coverage for medical marijuana.” This did not end the Court’s inquiry. The Court found that the absence of the word “reimbursement” in this Conflict provision is significant. While a well-reasoned dissenting opinion described “coverage” and “reimbursement” as “two sides of the same coin”, the majority disagreed. The Court held that “coverage” and “reimbursement” have materially distinct definitions. The Court reasoned that the MMA does not require coverage for medical marijuana, but there is no language in the MMA precluding a WC carrier from reimbursing a claimant for medical expenses that are reasonable and necessary to treat a work-related injury. In the Court’s view, employers must therefore reimburse employees for medical marijuana treatment that is reasonable and necessary for work-related injuries. This conclusion, the Court noted, is consistent with the WC Act’s reimbursement requirement, along with the MMA’s endorsement of medical marijuana and corresponding prohibition against the denial of rights or privileges based solely on medical marijuana use.

The Court also addressed the relationship between state and federal law. The MMA contains a provision stating that [n]othing in [the MMA] shall require an employer to commit any act that would put the employer or any person in violation of federal law.” Under federal law, it is unlawful for “any person knowingly or intentionally – [] to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance[.]” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). The Court did not find this to be a persuasive reason for reaching a different decision because reimbursement is not the same as manufacturing, distribution, or dispensing of marijuana. Thus, reimbursement is not illegal.

In her dissent, Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon discussed the interplay between state and federal law. She wrote that “[a]lthough the MMA legalizes the use of medical marijuana in Pennsylvania, a provider still cannot legally dispense medical marijuana under federal law” because it is illegal. She reasoned that an illegal treatment cannot be reasonable or necessary under the WC Act and, in turn, an employer should not be responsible for reimbursement.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

This decision—unless it is overturned or superseded—has immediate impact on employers in Pennsylvania. Indeed, they are now required to reimburse employees for medical marijuana treatment for work-related injuries under the WC Act. Failure to do so could result in penalties. This holding is consistent with holdings in New Mexico, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York and Connecticut. However, it is contrary to holdings in Massachusetts, Maine, and Minnesota.

Source link

One-Hit Wonders

Kentucky Bills Would Tax and Strictly Regulate Hemp-Infused THC Beverages Like Alcohol

Published

2 weeks ago

March 19, 2025

admin

In the years since the 2018 Farm Bill became federal law, a burgeoning industry of hemp-infused THC beverages has proliferated throughout the country, including in Kentucky. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized the domestic production of hemp and protected hemp and hemp products in interstate commerce. Likewise, Kentucky law has—for years—broadly allowed retail sales of hemp products, including food and beverages with hemp-derived THC.

Some states, however, perceive the 2018 Farm Bill to have created a legal loophole that allows hemp products with intoxicating amounts of THC to be sold, despite the 2018 Farm Bill’s restriction that hemp may not contain more than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. To close the loophole, states have enacted laws or implemented regulations banning certain hemp products with intoxicating amounts of THC or restricting such products to adult-use channels like licensed alcohol stores or cannabis dispensaries.

Kentucky appeared poised to do the same when state Senator Julie Raque Adams introduced Senate Bill (SB) 202, which would have placed a one-year moratorium on the sale of hemp-infused THC beverages while the state developed a regulatory regime. Hemp beverage manufacturers and other hemp industry stakeholders loudly and quickly voiced opposition, arguing for narrower means than banning all sales. The next day, Senator Adams filed a floor amendment that removed the moratorium and instead imposed the three-tiered regulatory system that exists for alcohol.

The three-tiered regulatory system that will apply if the bill becomes law has robust requirements, including licensing, shipping, and signature-on-delivery requirements. Additionally, hemp beverages will be limited to five milligrams of intoxicating cannabinoids per serving and may only be sold or consumed by persons 21 years of age or older. Beverages that exceed the cannabinoid limit could be legally sold until May 1, 2025.

The Senate approved the floor amendment. The House passed a committee substitute retaining the Senate floor amendment’s provisions but that extends the sell-through provision until June 1, 2025, and makes the five-milligram per serving limit applicable per every 12-ounce serving. The House committee substitute allows hemp beverages to be sold at fairs, festivals, and similar events. The Senate concurred with the House’s version, and Governor Beshear received the bill to sign into law or veto.

Although SB 202 eschews a ban against hemp-infused THC beverages, it creates strict regulations that differ significantly from the current regulatory regime for hemp beverages, while also directing state agencies to develop further regulations. Ongoing compliance by manufacturers, distributors, and retailers will be critical.

In addition to SB 202, the House and Senate passed House Bill (HB) 775, which sets tax rates for hemp-infused THC beverages. The taxes must be paid and reported by both manufacturers and distributors. Among other provisions, the bill requires manufacturers to obtain a food manufacturer permit from the Department for Public Health and to register with the Department of Revenue, and requires sellers to obtain a retail package, distributor, or direct shipper license. HB 775 is headed to Governor Beshear’s desk.

As a nationally preeminent and leading firm for hemp legal and regulatory services, Frost Brown Todd is well positioned to assist hemp manufacturers, distributors, and retailers in navigating applicable federal and state laws. For more information about SB 202 or HB 775, or their implications for hemp beverages sold in Kentucky, please contact the author or any other attorney with Frost Brown Todd’s Consumable Goods Team.

You can also visit our Hemp Legally Speaking Blog for more insight into the legal and operational issues unique to the industrial hemp, CBD, and hemp-derived THC marketplaces.

Source link

One-Hit Wonders

State Cannabis Banking Laws: Where Equity & Lending Access Stand Today – Eric Foster

Published

3 weeks ago

March 13, 2025

admin

By Eric Foster |

Cannas Capital Holdings

The Patchwork of State Cannabis Banking Laws

As federal cannabis banking reform remains stalled, states have begun taking independent action to address the capital access crisis for cannabis businesses. While some states like Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Virginia have created state-backed cannabis lending programs, others have taken different approaches, ranging from self-administered programs with no external banking involvement to state protections for financial institutions but no direct state capital support. This mishmash of approaches leaves both Social Equity Cannabis businesses vulnerable to predatory lenders and financial instability and Corporate Cannabis businesses without debt-financed lending options.

This article breaks down state cannabis banking laws, highlighting:

Which states provide structured lending and financing support.
How different states approach social equity financing.
Key differences in state banking statutes and what needs improvement.

1. How States Approach Cannabis Banking & Lending

Since federal banks and credit unions remain hesitant to lend, state governments have adopted various models to facilitate financial access for cannabis licensees.

Four Common Models of State Cannabis Banking & Lending

✅ Model 1: State-Backed Cannabis Lending Programs (Best Practice) These states use cannabis tax revenue to fund capital access programs, creating low-interest or zero-interest loan funds and encouraging banks to participate through loan guarantees and risk-sharing mechanisms.

Examples: Illinois, Maryland, New York, Virginia
Best for: Social equity and minority-owned cannabis businesses needing fair access to financing.

✅ Model 2: State Self-Administered Loan & Grant Programs Without External Bank Partnerships Some states allocate funding for social equity applicants but do not involve external banks, credit unions, or CDFIs in the process. These programs:

Provide a limited total amount of funding per year, which must be replenished through annual appropriations.
Cap the maximum funding available per business.
Do not address the need for long-term lending partnerships that could expand financing options.
Examples: Connecticut, Michigan, Massachusetts, Colorado, New Jersey, New York
Best for: Short-term relief but not a scalable lending solution for long-term business growth.

✅ Model 3: State Legal Protections for Banks Without Direct State Capital Support These states allow banks, credit unions, and CDFIs to serve cannabis businesses without fear of state-level penalties, but they do not provide direct state financial backing for loans or banking relationships. As a result:

Banks must still manage all compliance risks independently, limiting participation.
No state-backed loan guarantees, lending facilities, or grant programs exist to make cannabis lending more attractive.
Only the most risk-tolerant financial institutions choose to engage with cannabis businesses.
Examples: California, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, South Dakota
Best for: Encouraging some legal banking relationships but fails to ensure broad financial access for cannabis businesses.

✅ Model 4: No State-Level Banking Protections for Cannabis Businesses Some states have legalized cannabis but have not enacted statutory protections for banks or credit unions working with marijuana-related businesses. As a result:

Financial institutions in these states face higher risks when serving cannabis businesses.
No clear legal framework exists to shield banks from potential enforcement actions.
Cannabis businesses in these states remain almost entirely cash-based, increasing security risks and limiting growth.
Example: Louisiana
Worst for: Any cannabis business seeking financial services.

2. State-by-State Breakdown of Cannabis Banking & Lending Programs

Illinois: The Gold Standard for State Cannabis Lending

Best for: Social Equity & Minority-Owned Cannabis Businesses Banking Model: State-Backed Lending & Capital Access Program

The Community Invest – Cannabis Banking Services Program provides state-backed capital to banks and credit unions, enabling them to offer low-cost banking services to cannabis businesses.
The Cannabis Social Equity Loan Program offers low- or no-interest loans to social equity applicants, helping minority businesses establish themselves in the market.

The Illinois Finance Authority administers state-funded loans and subsidizes loans through qualified Banks, Credit Unions and CDFI’s, prioritizing businesses in disproportionately impacted areas.

Maryland: A Strong Model with Loan Loss Reserve Protection

Best for: Small & Medium-Scale Cannabis Businesses Banking Model: State Loan Loss Reserve & Lending Program

Maryland’s Capital Access Program (Subtitle 14, Chapter 26 of 2022) provides loan loss reserve accounts for banks that lend to social equity cannabis businesses.
The state allows dispensaries to apply for loans up to $500,000 and growers/processors up to $1 million, reducing financial barriers.
Maryland’s cannabis tax revenue partially funds these lending programs, ensuring sustainability.

New York: Social Equity-Focused Cannabis Lending

Best for: Justice-Impacted & Minority Entrepreneurs Banking Model: State-Facilitated Loan Fund & Private Investment Pool

New York’s Social Equity Cannabis Fund is structured to provide financial backing to social equity licensees.
The state works with private financial institutions and impact investors to co-fund cannabis business loans.
Loan repayment structures are designed to minimize early financial strain, helping startups succeed.

Virginia: A Developing State Banking Model

Best for: New Market Entrants & Small-Scale Cannabis Businesses Banking Model: State-Led Lending Initiative

Virginia’s State Cannabis Lending Initiative is has not started due to obstruction from Governor Youngkin rejecting the second State legalization bill in 2024 and 2025 but is modeled after Illinois & Maryland.
The state intends to offer cannabis business loans backed by state funds both directly and through Community Development Financial Institutions and Banks, supporting social equity businesses.

3. Where Other States Are Falling Short

Model 2 States: Self-Administered, Limited Loan & Grant Programs

Connecticut, Michigan, Massachusetts, Colorado and New Jersey provide funding for cannabis businesses but do not involve financial institutions, creating short-term solutions but no long-term lending structures.

Colorado self administers their lending program through the Office of Economic Development & International Trade

Model 3 States: State Protections Without Capital Support

California, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, South Dakota have legal protections for banks working with cannabis businesses but no direct lending or grant programs.

Model 4 States: No Legal Banking Protections

Louisiana has no banking protections for financial institutions, making cannabis businesses in the state almost entirely cash based.

4. The Path Forward: Expanding State-Level Lending Programs

As more states legalize cannabis, the best way to ensure equitable access to capital is to create structured lending programs that involve banks, credit unions, and CDFIs. States that only provide self-administered grants or legal protections for banks are not doing enough to ensure sustainable cannabis financing.

By following the models set by Illinois and Maryland, states can:

✅ Create state-backed cannabis lending facilities using cannabis tax revenues.

✅ Offer loan guarantees to banks and credit unions to reduce lending risks.

The Illinois Cannabis Capital Investment eco-system

✅ Adopt compliance & underwriting frameworks like the Bank Black Initiative & Cannabis Compliance Banking Solution to support financial institutions.

How Bank Black & Cannabis Compliance Banking Can Help

Cannas Capital’s Bank Black Initiative and Cannabis Compliance Banking & Capital Solution offer: ✅ AI-driven underwriting to de-risk cannabis loans. ✅ Regulatory compliance monitoring for banks & state agencies. ✅ Social equity-focused lending frameworks to ensure minority-owned businesses have fair access to capital.

Final Thoughts: Why State-Led Action is Necessary

The federal government isn’t moving on cannabis banking reform anytime soon. That means states must take the lead in creating sustainable, scalable lending programs for cannabis businesses. Expanding access to capital is not just about financing cannabis businesses—it’s about ensuring that social equity applicants and minority-owned companies have the same opportunities to succeed as well-capitalized corporate players.

With models like Illinois, Maryland, and New York, we already see effective solutions that prioritize social equity financing. The next step is expanding these programs to more states—and integrating compliance-driven solutions like the Bank Black Initiative to make them even stronger.

Citations & Key References

Source

Key Information Referenced

Link or Document

Illinois Finance Authority Act (20 ILCS 3501/801-5)

Illinois state-backed cannabis banking program

Illinois Finance Authority Act

Maryland Chapter 26 of 2022 & Chapter 254/255 of 2023

Maryland’s cannabis loan loss reserve and capital access program

Chapter 254/255 of 2023

New York Social Equity Cannabis Fund

State-backed cannabis investment fund