Vialpando v. Ben’s Automotive Servs.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
331 P.3d 975 (2014)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Gregory Vialpando (plaintiff) injured his lower back at work for Ben’s Automotive Services (Ben’s) (defendant). Following several surgeries, Vialpando was awarded workers’-compensation benefits for permanent partial disability. Vialpando continued to experience significant pain following his surgeries despite taking multiple prescription pain medications. Vialpando’s healthcare provider certified Vialpando to receive medical marijuana by participating in the New Mexico Department of Health Cannabis Program (the cannabis program), a program authorized by New Mexico’s Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act (Compassionate Use Act). Vialpando sought reimbursement for his medical marijuana from workers’ compensation. The workers’-compensation judge ordered Ben’s to reimburse Vialpando for medical marijuana, and Ben’s appealed. Ben’s argued that reimbursement for medical marijuana should not be available under workers’ compensation because marijuana was illegal under federal law and, therefore, also contrary to public policy. Ben’s also argued that the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) did not provide for reimbursement of marijuana because neither a medical-marijuana dispenser nor the cannabis program was authorized as a healthcare provider under the WCA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wechsler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.