AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Worker suffered a compensable, work-related injury to her lower back in December 1998, leading to chronic pain and numerous surgeries. She has been treated with various medications, including Oxycontin and fentanyl. In 2010, Worker was certified to participate in the New Mexico Department of Health Medical Cannabis Program under the Compassionate Use Act, due to her chronic pain and the ineffectiveness of other treatments. Her health care providers supported her use of medical marijuana as part of her treatment plan (paras 3, 5-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Employer/Insurer: Argued that the evidence supporting the Workers’ Compensation Judge's (WCJ) conclusion that Worker's use of medical marijuana constituted reasonable and necessary medical care was insufficient. They contended that the testimony from an unauthorized health care provider should not have been considered and that the conflict between New Mexico and federal law regarding medical marijuana use precludes the validity of the amended compensation order (paras 2, 8-9, 24).
• Worker: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the use of medical marijuana by Worker constitutes reasonable and necessary medical care requiring reimbursement under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
• Whether the conflict between New Mexico and federal law concerning the use of medical marijuana precludes the validity of the amended compensation order (paras 2, 24).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the WCJ’s conclusion that Worker’s use of medical marijuana constitutes reasonable and necessary medical care and required Employer to reimburse Worker for her certified purchases. It also held that the conflict between New Mexico and federal law does not support failing to give recognition to the amended compensation order (para 2).

Reasons

• The court found that the medical certification forms and notes from Worker’s authorized health care provider were substantial evidence supporting the WCJ’s determination. It also concluded that the conflict between New Mexico and federal law does not preclude the validity of the amended compensation order, aligning with previous decisions that did not reverse WCJ orders based on federal law or public policy. The court emphasized New Mexico's clear public policy expressed in the Compassionate Use Act and noted the lack of federal enforcement priority on medical marijuana as reasons for its decision. The court also addressed Employer's concerns about federal law conflicts and potential legal exposure, concluding that these did not warrant reversing the WCJ’s order (paras 8-32).