Personal Injuries or Economic Damages: Medical Marijuana, Inc., et al, v. Horn
Legal Analysis by Sophia Korman
Medical Marijuana, Inc., et al. v. Horn, despite being one of the most recent Supreme Court cases, holds the likelihood to become a very significant case even though the decision is yet to be released. The case centers around the question of “whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to ‘business or property by reason of’ the defendant’s acts for purposes of civil RICO.” What is RICO? RICO is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and essentially outlines what racketeering is and targets the former along with organized criminal activity. It also allows victims, more specifically “private individuals that were injured” due to someone violating RICO to get treble damages, which is defined as “three times the amount of actual damages determined by the jury” in compensation. To put it simply, this Supreme Court case centers around whether or not Horn’s financial loss fits within the guidelines of RICO as a “business or property” loss.
The plaintiff in this case is Douglas J. Horn who was a commercial truck driver. Horn got into a car accident in early 2012, severely injuring his hip and right shoulder. He looked for more natural ways of treating his pain, finding Dixie X CBD Dew Drops Tincture, a remedy that claimed to have no THC and appeared to comply with federal law. Due to his profession, Horn commonly was drug tested, so he made sure to research this product before consumption. In October 2012, shortly after Horn began consuming Dixie X, he failed a drug test, losing his income and health benefits. Horn first sued the defendants, Medical Marijuana, Inc., Dixie Holdings, LLC, and Red Dice Holdings, LLC, in 2015, for violating RICO and other state laws in a district court for New York. The result was not ideal for Horn as the district court only ruled in partial summary, meaning that they did not address all claims, and the claims that were decided ruled in favor of the defendants. Their reasoning was that due to Horn’s lawsuit being on the grounds of loss of earnings, “he lacked RICO standing [due to the reason of his lawsuit as it] was derivative of an antecedent personal injury”.
The case was picked back up in August of 2023, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the previous judgment, meaning they essentially overturned the previous verdict, this time ruling in favor of Horn. Notably, they also ruled in partial summary, and they remanded, turning the other charges back over to the lower courts. On October 3rd of 2023, Medical Marijuana, Inc, et. al, appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case in April of the next year. Oral arguments were presented extremely recently, on October 15th of 2024, over a year after the initial appeal. Lisa Blatt represented Medical Marijuana, Inc, et al, and in her opening argument argued that personal injury is different from damages, essentially saying that while lost wages are damages, Horn’s lost wages are a result from a personal injury caused by taking the THC product and cannot fall under RICO. She concluded her statement by saying that while “personal injuries are serious and may support tort claims (...) they are not the stuff of RICO”. Numerous questions came up, with some of the main discussions surrounding proximate cause and the question of whether or not Horn is actually suing over his personal injury. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson brought up an interesting point, stating Horn is not claiming that “[his] injury is resulting from a personal injury. (...) [ Instead he’s] injured because [he] got fired.” This argument aids the plaintiff as it implies that Horn’s injuries are solely economic. Blatt argued that “consumption is a personal injury” so Horn’s complaint about false advertising that caused him to consume THC would be classified as a personal injury. Overall, there was a very interesting back and forth over the specific details of the definitions of legal aspects like proximate cause and what would be considered personal injury as opposed to damages under RICO in the first line of questioning.
Easha Anand represented Horn in this case, and she began her opening argument by addressing many of the questions that came up in the discussion between Blatt and the Justices. Anand argued that damages explicitly meant compensatory damages and the wording of “recover the damages sustained” in RICO applied to personal injury saying that “you recover for harm. You don’t recover the harm”. She fundamentally is saying that Horn is not asking for compensation for the specific injury, rather he is seeking compensation for the harm he sustained as a result. Anand ended her statement by saying that proximate cause is not up for debate in this specific case, rather that would be left to the lower courts in remand, and she concluded by stating that “[they’re] trying to redress the loss of income from being fired. Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought up his concerns regarding damages from personal injury fitting within RICO parameters through Anand’s argument, asserting that what the plaintiff is arguing implies “every state tort personal injury suit (...) can now be brought on under RICO and seek treble damages”. Anand responded to his concerns by saying “most product liability cases are brought in strict liability or negligence”, meaning that the majority of the cases Justice Kavanaugh referenced likely would have different charges as opposed to RICO claims.
All in all, the Supreme Court justices relentlessly questioned both sides for this case, with neither particularly standing out as more favored by the court. Definitions were repeatedly discussed, and it appears that the result of this case will be based on the little details. Justice Kavanaugh as well as Justice Sonia Sotomayer questioned the wide scale implications of both sides’ definitions, so it is safe to say that however the court rules will certainly shake up personal injury lawsuits going forward.