Plaintiff-Appellant Douglas Horn appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Jonathan W. Feldman, M.J.) granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees on his claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). On appeal, Appellant argues that the district court erroneously held that he lacks RICO standing to sue for his lost earnings because those losses flowed from, or were derivative of, an antecedent personal injury. We agree. RICO’s civil-action provision, 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), authorizes a plaintiff to sue for injuries to “business or property.” While that language implies that a plaintiff cannot sue for personal injuries, that negative implication does not bar a plaintiff from suing for injuries to business or property simply because a personal injury was antecedent to those injuries. We therefore VACATE the order granting summary judgment to Appellees on Appellant’s civil RICO claim, and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. GERARD LYNCH, C.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Douglas J. Horn lost his job as a commercial truck driver, which he had held for more than ten years, after a random drug test detected tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) in his system. He maintains, however, that he ingested THC unwittingly by consuming a cannabis-derived product that was marketed as THC-free by Defendants-Appellees Medical Marijuana, Inc., Dixie Holdings, LLC, a/k/a Dixie Elixirs, and Red Dice Holdings, LLC (“Appellees”). He then brought this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq., and state law. Granting partial summary judgment to Appellees, the district court (Jonathan W. Feldman, M.J.) held that Horn lacked RICO standing1 because he sued for losses — in particular, his loss of earnings — that were derivative of, or flowed from, an antecedent personal injury. We disagree. RICO’s civil-action provision, 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), authorizes a plaintiff to sue for “injur[ies] in his business or property” that are proximately caused by a violation of one of RICO’s substantive provisions. While §1964(c) implicitly excludes recovery for personal injuries, nothing in §1964(c)’s text, or RICO’s structure or history, supports an amorphous RICO standing rule that bars plaintiffs from suing simply because their otherwise recoverable economic losses happen to have been connected to or flowed from a non-recoverable personal injury. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees on Horn’s RICO claim, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background The following facts are undisputed for purposes of this appeal. In February 2012, Horn was in a car accident that caused injuries to his hip and right shoulder. [J.A. 31, Compl. 12] He was prescribed medicine for those injuries, but in the months following his accident, “he investigated natural medicines as an alternative to his other prescriptions.” J. App’x 31. In or around September 2012, Horn discovered a magazine advertisement for Dixie X CBD Dew Drops Tincture (“Dixie X”), a product that was jointly produced, marketed, and sold by Appellees. [J.A. 30-35, Compl.
6, 8, 10, 13-14, 22, 30] The advertisement read as follows: CBD for Everyone! Using a proprietary extraction process and a strain of high-CBD hemp grown in a secret, foreign location, Colorado’s Dixie Elixirs and Edibles now offers a new product line called Dixie X, which contains 0 percent THC and up to 500 mg of CBD. This new CBD-rich medicine will be available in several forms, including a tincture, a topical and in capsules. Promoted as “a revolution in medicinal hemp-powered wellness,” the non-psychoactive products will first roll out in Colorado MMCs (medical marijuana centers), with plans to quickly expand outside the medical-marijuana market. “It has taken a tremendous amount of time, money and effort, but finally patients here in Colorado — and ultimately all individuals who are interested in utilizing CBD for medicinal benefit — will be able to have access to it,” says Tripp Keber, Dixie’s managing director. “We are importing industrial hemp from outside the US using an FDA import license — it’s below federal guidelines for THC, which is 0.3 percent — and we are taking that hemp and extracting the CBD. We have meticulously reviewed state and federal statutes, and we do not believe that we’re operating in conflict with any federal law as it’s related to the Dixie X (hemp-derived) products.” Id. at 47. [See also J.A. 32-33, Compl.
