Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Updates for Employers Regarding Medical Marijuana

Client Alert

In 2020, the momentum for marijuana legalization and decriminalization continued. In the November elections, five more states legalized either medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, or both. Although marijuana remains illegal in any form under federal law, just last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to decriminalize marijuana usage at the federal level. It's unlikely that the Senate will approve of that, but it is another milestone in what has been a rapidly shifting landscape over the last decade. Given the patchwork of state laws regarding medical and recreational marijuana, widely varied approaches for workplace protections, and the total federal ban, it can be difficult for employers to know how to deal with this issue.

Does a company need to accommodate an employee's medical marijuana use?

Well, it depends (sorry, did I mention I'm a lawyer?). In many states where medical marijuana is legal, including Ohio, there is no obligation on the part of the employer to accommodate an employee's use of medical marijuana. In those states, employers may fire or refuse to hire an employee who tests positive for marijuana, even if that employee is lawfully using marijuana pursuant to the state's laws. However, in some states, medical marijuana laws include protections for employees who use medical marijuana. For example, in Connecticut, federal courts have held that, aside from certain limited exceptions, an employer may not fire or refuse to hire an employee based on marijuana use if the employee is only engaging in lawful, off-duty use of medical marijuana. Note that even in states where employee protections are provided, employers still as a general rule may take action if an employee is using or actively under the influence of medical marijuana during working hours and/or in the workplace. Particularly for employers operating in multiple states, it is important to seek expert advice and engage in careful analysis of company drug policies and procedures as the maze of laws regarding medical marijuana continue to evolve.

May a company make exceptions to its drug free workplace policy for medical marijuana use that is lawful under state law?

Yes, but there are important factors to consider in doing so. As medical marijuana becomes more common and accepted in the U.S., some employers are seeking to relax their drug policies to accommodate employees using the substance lawfully under state law. This is generally permissible, but such a policy change may come with unintended consequences that should be assessed. Employers should consider whether this may affect their participation in state workers' compensation discount programs tied to drug-free workplace requirements. Companies should also consider whether certain positions are particularly safety-sensitive and may pose a concern in connection with such a policy change. Further, if a company receives federal funding, they may be precluded from this approach by the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act. Again, employers should seek out expert advice and careful analysis of the potential consequences of policy change in this evolving area.

As marijuana laws change, the laws and policies will also continue to develop. Please call or email Russell T. Rendall at (216) 658-2205 or rtrendall@bmdllc.com with any questions, or reach out to your BMD Cannabis Law Attorney to learn more about employee medical marijuana use and drug free workplace policies.


What Inpatient Behavioral Health Providers Need to Know About ODM's New Draft Rule for Reimbursements

Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) recently released a draft rule that will transform how inpatient behavioral health services are reimbursed for some hospitals. ODM will migrate inpatient payments for behavioral health and substance use disorder services (BH/SUD) provided by freestanding psychiatric hospitals (FSPs) from the APR-DRG payment methodology to a per diem payment methodology derived from the APR-DRG system.

BMD Named to the 2024 U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms”

Brennan Manna & Diamond (BMD) is recognized among the leading law firms in the nation according to the 2024 Edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers®  "Best Law Firms." The firm has ranked in in 13 practice areas and has earned “National Tier 1” rankings in Health Care Law and Litigation-Trusts & Estates.

Friendly Physician Models: The Basics Through 5 Frequently Asked Questions

During the past several years, many health law practices have noticed a dramatic increase in the number of telehealth businesses and private equity backed health care providers. Both of these trends often rely heavily on corporate structures commonly referred to as “friendly physician,” “captive PC” or “MSO” models. Although friendly physician models are used by non-physician health care providers (e.g., physical therapists, psychologists, and dentists), this article focuses on physicians and how the model is used in connection with the provision of professional medical services.

The DOL and EEOC Enter a Partnership to Strengthen Federal Employment Law Enforcement

On September 13, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to work together in enforcing federal employment laws. The MOU forms a partnership between the two agencies to encourage coordination through information sharing, joint investigations, training, and outreach.

Proposed Laboratory Arrangement Draws Heightened Scrutiny from the OIG

On September 25, 2023, the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion 23-06 (AO). The Opinion involved a proposed arrangement between an independent laboratory and other physician laboratories for the purchase of the technical component of anatomic pathology services. The OIG ultimately concluded that the arrangement at issue, if it was entered into with the requisite intent, would implicate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and constitute grounds for sanctions.