When Douglas Horn drove a truck into a ditch in 2012, he could not have imagined it was the first step in a series of events that would eventually land him in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The wreck left Horn with shoulder and hip injuries and aggravated existing issues with his back. Seeking relief, he looked to a CBD product derived from hemp that was advertised as not containing THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. As a driver, he had to submit to regular drug testing. A positive THC test could cost him his job.
But he did flunk a THC test soon after he began taking a CBD product called Dixie X and was fired. According to court documents, his team driver – his wife, Cindy – did not feel safe going on the road without Horn, so she quit her job also. The result was financial loss to the couple and their family.
The test result also led to action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The outcome there has led to a question of such legal significance that the Supreme Court will hear arguments in October over whether Horn can sue the manufacturers of Dixie X under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Driver loses in district court, wins on appeal
The lower court said Horn could not do so, based on its interpretation of the ability to bring lawsuits under the law.
But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling on a RICO-based civil suit, saying the law provided that avenue to Horn. (Other charges brought by Horn in the lawsuit were mostly denied on summary judgment or were withdrawn.)
The manufacturers of the CBD product then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court accepts less than 2% of its petitions for review, known as certiorari. It has rejected trucking-related certiorari requests in the recent past, on issues such as whether California’s trucking industry could be subject to independent contractor law AB5 or whether a broker is liable for a fatality involving a truck it hired to deliver freight. It rejected certiorari on that latter question twice in recent years, also passing on a review of Miller vs. C.H. Robinson (NASDAQ: CHRW).
But in late April the court decided to take Horn’s case. Oral arguments will be heard Oct. 15, shortly after the new Supreme Court term starts on Oct. 7.
The three petitioners to the Supreme Court asking the nine justices to overturn the 2nd Circuit decision are Medical Marijuana Inc., Dixie Holdings (also known as Dixie Elixirs) and Red Dice Holdings. Red Dice, according to its legal brief filed with the court, is a joint venture of Medical Marijuana and Dixie Holdings.
It was Red Dice that sold the Dixie X consumed by Horn. The petitioner’s brief notes that Horn and his wife, whose employer was Enterprise Transportation Co., found out about Dixie X by looking at a copy of legendary drug magazine High Times, which was on a table in a bookstore the couple visited while waiting to meet friends for dinner. (The Red Dice brief is so granular at times that it notes the dinner was to be at Chili’s (NYSE: EAT).
Dixie X was “manufactured … from mature hemp stalk,” which means that it “at all times [has] been legally distributed under federal law,” according to the brief.
The brief also notes that “although hemp and marijuana are derived from the same plant, cannabis sativa, they differ in important ways. Most significantly, hemp has been engineered to contain low concentrations of THC.”
The concentrations were apparently not low enough to have stopped Horn from flunking his drug test, given that the test could only be passed if zero THC was detected.
Key question: does RICO allow this type of lawsuit?
But the Supreme Court’s reason for taking the Red Dice vs. Horn case is not that it is concerned Red Dice and its partners may have fraudulently advertised 0% THC content in Dixie X when the results of Horn’s drug test suggested otherwise. The issue, rather, is whether RICO allows Horn to sue Red Dice under the act for damage to his “business or property” because of its actions, or whether what Horn suffered was a “personal injury.” Suing under RICO for that latter reason is not permitted by the law.
Summing up the arguments from the 2nd Circuit, Horn’s attorneys wrote in its brief to the court that RICO “does not bar a plaintiff suing for injuries to business or property simply because they flow from, or are derivative of, a personal injury.”
The 2nd Circuit, according to the brief, “concluded that the term ‘business’ covered ‘concepts like employment, occupation or professions engaged in for gain or livelihood.’”
“Because Mr. Horn was harmed in his employment – he lost his job – he has been injured in his business or property for civil RICO purposes,” according to the Horn brief.
The brief filed by Red Dice and its parent companies does appear to take the occasional subtle swipe at Horn’s consumption of its own product. It notes that the Horns previously had “experience with such varied hemp-based products as hemp milk, hemp shakes, hemp
seeds, and hemp shampoo.” It says they “did their own research” on the THC content of CBD products by, among other things, “watching YouTube videos.” And the brief also says Horn never asked his doctor about Dixie X.
But that is a side issue in the Red Dice brief compared to the question of whether the companies can be sued under RICO for Horn’s losing his job.
“This is a classic personal-injury claim,” according to the brief. “Horn cannot reclassify his lost wages as a discrete injury to ‘business or property.’ Those lost wages flow from his ingestion of a THC-containing product, which prompted his employer to terminate him for failing a drug test. Those lost wages are thus damages from an alleged personal injury, not a freestanding injury to business or property.”
The significant legal issue that may have led the Supreme Court to take the Horn case was also summed up by Red Dice’s attorneys.
“The Second Circuit and Horn would instead allow plaintiffs to sue for the consequences of personal injuries, so long as those consequences harm plaintiffs’ business or property,” they said in the brief. “That approach would nullify RICO’s ‘business or property’ requirement.”
Numerous friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in the case, including from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supporting Red Dice and its parent companies.
More articles by John Kingston
California bill would expand state’s power over warehouses and related trucking
Appeal of Werner nuclear verdict will be heard by Texas Supreme Court
Lender BMO’s Q3 numbers show even more trucking credit deterioration
dkn
It is quite possible that temperature could have increased the THC content in the product if the driver, Horn, stored the product in a hot vehicle. Temperature has a way of altering the chemistry and thus the contents of CBD products through decarboxylation which ‘activates’ and thus, increases THC content. So, the product may have tested at 0% THC prior to its’ sale only to later test positive for THC after being stored improperly in a hot vehicle or in the sun, etc. Further, because the Horns ingested/topically used other products from other companies containing CBD, it begs the question, were these other products tested for THC after the fact like the product from Red Dice?
I realize this is more of a side note in the case involving the RICO act but, quite frankly it shouldn’t be considering the alterable chemical properties of so called, THC free CBD that is exposed to high temperatures in transport/storage.
Also, the product ideally should be matched genetically with the manufacturer’s batch because it’s quite easy enough to add THC to the product prior to having it tested for THC at which point RICO would apply to the Horn couple rather than Red Dice Holdings.
Another question is this: does the Horn couple have a history of THC use? I realize the point I made above and the question that follows tests the character of the Horn couple who are presumably innocent but, could possibly be proven guilty of tampering with the evidence if the manufacturer has a stored batch from the same harvest barrel of their own products purchased by them with a different genetic makeup. That said, CBD manufacturers in the future would do well to keep a sample batch on file for ten years in the event they need to genetically match their product to one sold to ensure the product has not been tampered with in light of this case which seeks to sue under the RICO act and could very well win their case at which point, personal injury suits under the RICO act involving CBD products either improperly stored or tampered with will proliferate through the court system for decades to come.
What do you think?
dave
The government only gets away with their ‘drug testing’ of drivers because drivers are a powerless captive group that will do as they are told.
Paula c
IF The label stated no THC and the driver used it for pain and trying to avoid Doctors visit and Opiods . HOW long did this man drive using Dixie before drug test. What about driver lost job due to cough syrup that did not state will cause drowziness
Joseph Williams
What a joke. Let’s not talk about the fact the CBD had nothing to do with anything and the company fired him anyways. The amount of THC is negligible and should have never triggered a drug test. I would get the product tested to see if it actually has more then what the label stated.
Greg Patarini
Anyone who drives knows not to take anything derived from weed or hemp.
Adam
Government cannot have it both ways .
Either medical Is across the board or its not .
Current system is a joke.