The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Douglas Horn, a former commercial truck driver who was fired after failing a drug test caused by a CBD elixir advertised to contain no THC. Horn had been using the CBD product after a serious accident and failed his drug test weeks later. He filed a lawsuit in 2015 against Medical Marijuana, Inc., and other companies involved in the making and distribution of the product, alleging violations of the Controlled Substances Act and mail and wire fraud.
Horn’s lawsuit also brings up the question of whether he was permitted to file his lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows for civil lawsuits in certain circumstances and allows plaintiffs to seek triple damages. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals granted permission for the suit, which was then appealed to the Supreme Court by Medical Marijuana, Inc., arguing that allowing such lawsuits would expand the scope of civil RICO lawsuits beyond what was intended when the law was enacted.
The RICO Act was signed into law by President Nixon in 1970 to give prosecutors more power in targeting organized crime. While the federal law does allow for private lawsuits by individuals who have been damaged in business or property, some federal appeals courts have ruled that these civil suits cannot be based on personal injury claims. The case involving Douglas Horn will likely address the interpretation and application of the RICO Act in cases involving product liability and personal injury claims.
The case of Douglas Horn highlights the complexities of navigating legal issues surrounding the use of CBD products and the potential consequences of failed drug tests for individuals in safety-sensitive occupations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the CBD industry and the ability of individuals to seek recourse for damages resulting from the use of such products.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case reflects the importance of clarifying the legal framework surrounding CBD products and their potential impact on individuals in safety-sensitive positions. It also raises broader questions about the interpretation of laws such as the RICO Act and their application in cases involving personal injury claims.
As the case moves forward, it will be essential to consider the implications of the court’s decision on future cases involving CBD products, workplace drug testing, and product liability claims. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for individuals who have been harmed by misleading advertising or faulty products, as well as for companies in the CBD industry and other industries affected by similar legal challenges.
