*

Court hears medical marijuana company's appeal

*

Driver sued company under anti-organized crime law

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, Oct 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court

tackled a case on Tuesday involving a New York state man who was

fired from his job as a commercial truck driver for failing a

drug test after taking cannabidiol, or CBD, that he said was

falsely sold as lacking the psychoactive ingredient present in

marijuana.

The justices heard an appeal led by Medical Marijuana Inc ( MJNA )

of a lower court's decision allowing plaintiff Douglas

Horn to bring a civil lawsuit against the San Diego,

California-based company under the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This 1970 federal law was

designed to crack down on organized crime and its economic

impact.

The civil provisions of the law permit triple damages for

successful lawsuits by "any person injured in his business or

property" as a result of certain actions by a defendant.

Horn, who was ailing from injuries sustained in a trucking

accident, in 2012 purchased a CBD tincture called Dixie X. It

was advertised as a natural pain reliever containing no

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in

marijuana that causes a high.

After a random drug test ordered by his employer detected

THC in his system, Horn was fired from his trucking job that he

had held for more than a decade. Horn has said he is not a

marijuana user.

Some of the justices seemed receptive to the company's

argument that Horn's loss of employment was not the kind of

business injury that Congress meant to guard against when it

enacted the RICO Act.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern about

making it too easy for plaintiffs to bring civil RICO suits

simply by characterizing certain personal injuries as injuries

to business or property.

"That would be a dramatic, really radical shift in how tort

suits are brought throughout the United States," Kavanaugh told

Horn's lawyer Easha Anand, referring to personal injury law,

known as torts.

"And we would expect a clearer indication from Congress,"

Kavanaugh added.

Lisa Blatt, the lawyer who represented Medical Marijuana ( MJNA ),

argued that allowing Horn's suit to proceed would open the door

to plaintiffs making a federal case out of personal injury

complaints better addressed under state law.

"It is utterly implausible that Congress federalized every

slip and fall involving RICO predicates," Blatt said, referring

to RICO crimes such as embezzlement, extortion or mail fraud.

But questions posed by some of the justices suggested they

might be inclined to let Horn's civil RICO suit proceed.

"If you're harmed when you lose a job, then you've been

injured in your business, haven't you?" liberal Justice Elena

Kagan asked Blatt.

"I guess what I'm saying is the simplest, clearest reading

of this statutory language is it doesn't distinguish by what

causes the harm," Kagan added. "It just says, if you're harmed

in a way that's in your business or property, which has been

understood to include being harmed by loss of a job, and that's

by reason of a (racketeering activity), then you're entitled to

threefold the damages you would otherwise be."

Horn and his wife, Cindy, in 2015 brought a lawsuit in

federal court in New York state seeking monetary damages,

claiming, among other things, that Medical Marijuana ( MJNA ) and

associated companies violated RICO's provisions. Horn had the

tincture independently tested in a laboratory, which confirmed

that the product contained THC.

According to the suit, a "pattern of racketeering activity"

by the companies - including violations of the federal

Controlled Substances Act, as well as mail fraud and wire fraud

- inflicted a business or property injury on Horn in the form of

his firing.

A federal trial judge ruled against Horn's civil RICO claim.

The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed

the judge's decision, prompting Medical Marijuana's ( MJNA ) appeal to

the Supreme Court.

The justices are expected to rule in the case by the end of

June.