Missouri Supreme Court Hears Case Challenging Cannabis Business Application Process
The Missouri Supreme Court last week heard arguments challenging a March appeals court decision that directed the state to award a cannabis company 13 facility licenses after determining the state’s 2019 application process was inconsistent, the Missouri Independent reports. Five years ago, the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission denied the appeal over the licenses by Hippos LLC after the company argued identical applications had received different scores from the same grader.
Hippos is challenging whether the commission acted properly when it rescored the company’s application or whether the approach was “completely flawed,” as ruled by the appeals court, because the grader left no notes elaborating on its scoring.
The state Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) argued before the Supreme Court that it acted correctly and thoroughly investigated the application scores. The agency also urged the court to focus on the commission’s decision and not to rehash the state’s cannabis application grading process.
An audit by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, which took nearly three years, alleged “perceived and actual deficiencies” in the application scoring process, according to a report from the Independent. The Division of Cannabis Regulation called the audit “baseless” and “flawed.”
The Missouri Court of Appeals found that “In each of Hippos’ applications, there were many instances in which identical answers to the same question received inconsistent scores,” wrote Southern District Judge Jeffery Bates.
“That should never have occurred if Wise [Health Solutions] scorers had followed the instructions that they were given. Neither the department nor Wise did anything to correct this situation.” —Bates, in the Appeals Court decision via KUCR
According to Fitzpatrick’s audit, Wise scorers were instructed to keep limited notes during the application scoring process in order to reduce the amount of records that could be produced in a lawsuit.
Sean McDowell, an assistant attorney general representing the state in the Supreme Court case, argued that the rescoring was valid because Hippos didn’t “disprove the validity of the original scores.” McDowell contended that if judges believe more fact-finding is necessary then the case should be sent back to the commission.
The court did not issue an immediate ruling.