After an accident that left truck driver Douglas Horn in chronic pain, he wondered if a supplement marketed as a “new CBD-rich medicine” would help.
The business asserted that Dixie X, a hemp-based product, did not contain THC, the key element in marijuana. However, after failing a drug test and losing his employment, Horn sued, citing, in part, federal legislation designed to combat organized crime.
Related posts
On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it would rule on whether Horn could continue his lawsuit.
The justices agreed to hear an appeal by Medical Marijuana Inc., which sought review of a lower court’s decision that Horn could sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Prosecutors can utilize RICO to pursue mobsters and others. Even in the absence of criminal charges, prosecutors can pursue civil cases. If successful, the plaintiff may receive three times the amount of actual damages plus attorney’s costs.
The statute allows lawsuits to be filed by anyone “injured in his business or property” as a result of racketeering activities.
Horn claims that Medical Marijuana Inc. committed mail and wire fraud, which caused him to lose his employment.
Horn claimed that after seeing Dixie X commercials, he watched a video in which a company executive stated that the company’s products did not contain THC. Both the website and a customer care agent made the same assertion, according to Horn.
However, a few weeks after using Dixie X in 2012, Horn tested positive for THC. Horn was shocked when he sent Dixie X to a lab, which confirmed its THC content.
Horn filed a lawsuit in 2015 for lost wages under both RICO and New York state laws.
A district judge ruled that RICO does not apply to personal harm claims. When Horn filed an appeal, the New York-based 2nd United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor. The court ruled that the plain meaning of the word “business” authorizes Horn to sue.
“Because the term ‘business’ encompasses ’employment,’ Horn has suffered an injury ‘in his business,’ as contemplated by the RICO statute,” said Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch for the three-judge panel. According to Horn, his “termination cost him current and future wages and his insurance and pension benefits—all of which were tied to his employment.”
