Federal Law Bars Cannabis as Treatment for Injured Worker

Why It Matters

The ruling bars workers’ compensation claims for cannabis treatments, forcing employers and insurers to rely solely on federally approved therapies and highlighting the clash between state medical marijuana laws and federal drug policy.

Key Takeaways

• Federal law blocks cannabis reimbursement under workers’ comp.
• 2nd Circuit cites Controlled Substances Act Schedule I status.
• State medical cannabis laws don’t affect federal workers’ compensation.
• Court defers to Congress for potential rescheduling.
• Employer and insurer must cover only approved treatments.

Pulse Analysis

The U.S. Second Circuit’s decision reaffirms that cannabis remains a Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act, and therefore cannot be classified as a “reasonable and necessary” medical expense for Longshore Harbor and Workers’ Compensation Act claims. By invoking the plain‑text language of the CSA, the court dismissed arguments that state‑level medical‑marijuana programs or congressional research riders alter the drug’s federal status. The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Gonzales v. Raich, which held that federal scheduling precludes any recognized medical use absent legislative change.

For employers and insurers, the judgment means that reimbursement requests for cannabis‑derived products, even when prescribed for chronic pain, must be denied under current federal law. Claimants cannot rely on state‑approved medical marijuana regimes to secure workers’ compensation benefits, creating a clear jurisdictional divide. The decision also signals to benefits administrators that the Department of Labor’s administrative bodies will continue to apply the CSA strictly, limiting the scope of permissible medical treatments. Consequently, companies must ensure that their medical‑expense policies reference only federally recognized therapies to avoid compliance risks.

Looking ahead, the court acknowledged that Congress or the executive branch could eventually reclassify marijuana, but such policy shifts lie outside the judiciary’s remit. Pending any rescheduling, the workers’ compensation landscape will likely see continued litigation as claimants test the boundaries of federal versus state authority. Stakeholders should monitor legislative proposals, including the bipartisan efforts to move cannabis to Schedule III, and assess how changes could affect liability exposure and benefit design. Proactive engagement with legal counsel and benefits consultants will help organizations adapt to evolving federal drug policy.