187 A.3d 10
Me.2018Background
- Gaetan H. Bourgoin, permanently disabled from a 1989 workplace back injury, obtained a 2012 Maine medical-marijuana certification and used marijuana to treat chronic pain after opioids failed.
- Bourgoin petitioned the Maine Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) in 2012 for reimbursement of medical-marijuana costs; a hearing officer granted the petition in 2015 and the Appellate Division affirmed in 2016.
- Twin Rivers Paper Company (employer) appealed, arguing federal law (Controlled Substances Act, CSA) bars any order forcing it to subsidize marijuana that is a Schedule I drug under federal law.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court granted review to decide whether the CSA preempts the Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MMUMA) insofar as the MMUMA served as the basis for ordering the employer to reimburse medical-marijuana costs.
- The Court majority held that, as applied to an employer ordered to pay for an employee’s medical marijuana, the MMUMA conflicts with and is preempted by the CSA; the judgment requiring reimbursement was vacated and remanded.
- Two justices dissented (Jabar, joined by Alexander), reasoning no positive conflict existed because reimbursement does not force the employer to possess, manufacture, or distribute marijuana and because aiding-and-abetting liability requires specific intent beyond mere knowledge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bourgoin) | Defendant's Argument (Twin Rivers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CSA preempts the MMUMA when a state order requires an employer to reimburse an employee for medically certified marijuana | MMUMA authorizes medical use; WCB can order reimbursement as reasonable medical expense under workers’ compensation law | CSA criminalizes manufacture/distribution/possession of marijuana (Schedule I); an order forcing reimbursement would require employer to aid/abet a federal crime and thus is preempted | Majority: CSA preempts MMUMA as applied — requiring employer reimbursement would create a positive conflict and is forbidden; judgment vacated |
| Whether an employer who reimburses an employee would be criminally liable for aiding and abetting under federal law | Reimbursement is a legitimate workers’ compensation expense; speculative federal prosecution should not control | Reimbursing with knowledge would satisfy elements of aiding/abetting (18 U.S.C. §2) and thereby make compliance with state order a federal crime | Majority: Reimbursement would meet elements of aiding/abetting (knowledge and affirmative act) and so creates an irreconcilable conflict with CSA; dissent: specific intent requirement likely unmet, so prosecution is speculative and preemption unwarranted |
| Whether the MMUMA’s provision disallowing reimbursement by "private health insurers" means employers or self-insured employers are exempt from reimbursement obligations | Bourgoin: WCB may still order employer payment under WCA as reasonable medical expense | Twin Rivers: MMUMA’s language shows intent that third‑party payors not be required to reimburse; employer is akin to private insurer | Dissent (would have reached merits): MMUMA’s "private health insurer" does not unambiguously include self‑insured employers; majority did not decide because of federal preemption outcome |
| Whether medical marijuana is a “reasonable and proper” medical expense under Maine Workers’ Compensation Act | Bourgoin: Given his history and benefit from marijuana, it is reasonable and proper | Twin Rivers: Marijuana is illegal under federal law and lacks accepted safety/standards; not reasonable | Dissent (would have reached merits): On facts (failed opioids, efficacy for Bourgoin), marijuana is reasonable and proper; majority did not address due to preemption ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (CSA is a comprehensive federal scheme; federal power may preempt state laws allowing local medical marijuana use)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (preemption analysis anchored to congressional purpose and presumption against displacing state police powers)
- Hillsborough Cty. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (1985) (three categories of preemption including conflict preemption)
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) (aider-and-abetter liability requires an affirmative act in furtherance and intent to facilitate the offense)
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U.S. 483 (2001) (marijuana has no currently accepted medical use under CSA; state authorization does not create a federal defense)
- Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010) (state medical-marijuana law does not obligate employers to accommodate or subsidize medical marijuana; federal law preempts to the extent state law affirmatively authorizes such accommodation)
- People v. Crouse, 388 P.3d 39 (Colo. 2017) (state requirement that officers return seized medical marijuana conflicted with CSA; compliance with both laws was impossible)
- Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013) (state law preempted where it requires what federal law forbids)