Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workers Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah employers, patients press for clearer workers’ comp rules when medical cannabis is involved
Summary
Business owners and patient advocates told a state medical cannabis working group that ambiguity over impairment testing and fault after workplace injuries leaves employers exposed and patients at risk; panel members said further study and clearer guidance are needed.
A small-business owner and patient advocates urged Utah’s medical cannabis working group to clarify how workers’ compensation and post‑accident drug testing should treat patients who use medical cannabis, arguing current testing and medical‑card policies create uncertainty for employers and employees.
Ty Grades, a Davis County business owner, told the committee he reached out to Representative Karianne Lisonbee and Speaker Mike Schultz seeking clearer guidelines for employers. "When an employee goes in for drug testing, including preemployment, random or post accident, the medical review officer ... will test for substances. And if a substance is detected, the next question is, does this employee have a prescription for the substance? With other prescribed drugs, there's a method to the madness. Apparently, when it comes to medical marijuana, these same rules don't apply," Grades said.
The working group’s chair opened the item by framing the issue as balancing employee personal accountability and employer exposure. Grades proposed making impaired employees, rather than employers and their workers’ compensation funds, responsible when post‑accident tests show impairment — similar to distracted‑driving rules that assign responsibility to the person who texted while driving.
Desiree Hennessy of the Utah Patients Coalition urged caution before changing fault rules. "We're still in a space scientifically that leaves a lot of gray area," Hennessy said, arguing current testing methods — particularly urine tests — cannot reliably determine impairment at the time of an accident. She recommended a study of impairment testing before policy changes.
Committee members said the issue merited more work. The group discussed parallels to other medications and stressed the need to avoid unintended penalties for people who hold valid medical cards. The chair invited further public comment and signaled that the working group would continue to examine possible administrative or legislative clarifications.
The discussion did not include a formal vote or an instruction to draft specific legislation; rather, members asked staff to gather more information and invited stakeholders to provide further evidence and proposals.
Ending: The working group moved on to other agenda items after public comment, keeping this topic open for future meetings and staff research.
