Appeal of Andrew Panaggio

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed a Compensation Appeals Board decision denying reimbursement for therapeutic cannabis used to treat a work-related injury. The court held that RSA 126-X:3, III(a) does not prohibit reimbursement under the Workers’ Compensation Law when the treatment is reasonable, medically necessary, and causally related to the injury. The court remanded for the board to determine whether reimbursement would violate federal law and to explain its reasoning adequately.

Holdings

1. RSA 126-X:3, III(a) does not bar a workers' compensation insurance carrier from reimbursing an injured employee for therapeutic cannabis. Although the provision does not create an affirmative statutory right to reimbursement or require listed entities to participate in the therapeutic cannabis program, it does not disturb a preexisting obligation under RSA 281-A:23, I to furnish reasonable medical care.
2. The board's conclusion that federal law prevented reimbursement was inadequately explained and could not support meaningful appellate review. The board was required on remand to determine in the first instance whether reimbursement for cannabis obtained in compliance with state law would violate an identified federal statute, including any applicable criminal-intent requirements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether RSA 126-X:3, III(a) bars a workers' compensation insurance carrier from reimbursing an injured employee for reasonable and medically necessary therapeutic cannabis.
2. Whether the Compensation Appeals Board adequately explained its conclusion that federal law prevented the insurance carrier from reimbursing Panaggio for cannabis obtained in compliance with New Hampshire law.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded