The U.S. Supreme Court this week heard arguments related to a lawsuit brought by a truck driver who failed a drug test for THC after using a CBD supplement advertised as THC-free. Douglas Horn is suing Medical Marijuana, the maker of Dixie-X, a “CBD-rich drug,” for lost wages, USA Today reports. Horne claims that when he used CBD products, he unknowingly ingested THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, which caused him to fail a drug test and lose his job, insurance, and benefits. I am doing it.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week heard arguments related to a lawsuit brought by a truck driver who failed a drug test for THC after using a CBD supplement advertised as THC-free.
getty
Mr. Horne filed a lawsuit against Medical Marijuana and other companies involved in distributing CBD products under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a law created to combat organized crime. Plaintiffs suing under the law must prove a pattern of illegal conduct and that the conduct harmed property or business. If a RICO lawsuit is successful, plaintiffs may be able to collect three times the amount of damages, which could be profitable.
In 1981, the Supreme Court expanded its interpretation of the law to include both legal and illegal businesses, leading to a significant increase in RICO cases filed in federal court. Since then, courts have sought to narrow the law's scope.
Supreme Court hears oral argument
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mr. Horn's case and determined whether Mr. Horn can sue under the RICO Act. Medical Marijuana, Inc. argues that RICO does not apply to this lawsuit because the injuries caused by the CBD elixir were personal rather than work-related injuries.
“This is a physical, chemical, bodily invasion,” Lisa Blatt, an attorney representing Medical Marijuana Inc. and the companies involved in distributing the product, said of Horne's claims. “For me, it's a physical injury.”
United States Supreme Court
Getty Images
During oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that RICO's personal injury exclusion is intended to limit its scope. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked if Mr. Horne was portraying personal injury as damage to business, a position that “represents a dramatic, really fundamental change in the way tort change is being brought about across the country.” He said that. But Justice Elena Kagan appears to dispute the idea that Horn's injuries were purely personal.
“If you've lost your job and suffered a loss, you've suffered a business loss, right?” Kagan asked the companies' lawyers, according to a CNN report. Kagan added that the law “simply provides that if you are harmed by a RICO violation in your business, including your employment, you are entitled to treble damages.”
Mr. Horne's attorney, Esha Anand, said in court that the RICO application was filed because Mr. Horne lost his job.
“We believe that termination is a classic injury to a business,” Horne's lawyer, Esha Anand, told the Supreme Court. “I can no longer make a living.”
Anand also pointed out that plaintiffs in RICO cases cannot sue for pain and suffering, which typically makes up the majority of damages awarded in personal injury cases.
“Defendants have been coming to this court for decades and saying, 'If you interpret RICO the way it should be interpreted literally, the sky will fall,'” she said. “The sky is not falling.”
New York's Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Horne and ruled that the suit could be brought under the RICO Act. The Supreme Court's decision on the case is expected next year.
