Tag Archives: injury

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News

What is the Heart Bill?

Sandulli Grace Staff December 12, 2011

The Heart Law presumption, commonly called the “Heart Bill” presumes that a police officer’s heart ailment is work-related for purposes of accidental disability retirement, unless there is sufficient evidence to rebut it.  In other words, if you have a heart ailment (e.g., you have a heart attack), you are entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits unless the entity opposing the presumption can provide “competent evidence” proving that it was not work related.  Even if there is absolutely no evidence that the impairment is work-related, the presumption stands.  Attempts to overcome the presumption by pointing out numerous risk factors such as high cholesterol, obesity, or smoking arte typically unsuccessful because the mere existence of risk factors does not in and of itself rebut the presumption.  The impact of the risk factors must include substantial evidence of how the risk factors affected the individual.

Even in the event that a heart ailment could not be said to have arisen in the line of duty, Massachusetts law provides that if a pre-existing condition is accelerated as a result of a hazard on the job, causation for the injury is established, even if the pre-existing condition is not work-related.  For example, court cases have ruled that a police officer’s hypertension was exacerbated by normal police duties and thus work-related and that a fire fighter’s degenerative disc disease was exacerbated by working on a fire truck and thus work-related.

Furthermore, if you have a collective bargaining agreement that applies the Heart Law presumption to “injured-on-duty” leave, you may be entitled to 111F leave if you have a heart ailment and decide to go back to work.  For example, if you have a heart attack and take 4 weeks to recover, you may be entitled to receive 111F pay for that time period instead of being forced to use your sick days.  You should contact your union representative if you believe this may affect you.

Sandulli Grace In The News

Sandulli Grace and MassCOP win arbitration awarding officer c. 41 Section 111F benefits based on injury that occurred while training for an upcoming physical fitness assessment

Sandulli Grace Staff September 27, 2010

In November 2009, Sudbury Police Officer Ryan Boyd tore a muscle in his chest while lifting weights.  Although he was working out at a private gym on his own time, he was doing so in preparation for an upcoming physical fitness assessment that was a mandatory part of his role on the METRO-LEC METRO-STAR “Regional Response Team.” The Town refused to grant Boyd Injured on Duty Leave, arguing that the injury was sustained while Boyd was “taking part in a personal hobby that had no connection to his job as a Sudbury Police Officer.”

The Sudbury Police Association, MCOP Local 370, AFL-CIO, arbitrated the case, represented by Attorney Leigh Panettiere of Sandulli Grace, P.C.  The Arbitrator agreed with the Union’s argument and found that Boyd’s injury “arose out of and in the course of his employment” because the Town required Officer Boyd to be in “excellent physical condition” and participate in an “ongoing physical fitness program” while not providing him paid time to exercise nor a facility in which to do so.  The Arbitrator also noted that Boyd’s commanding officer had advised him and his fellow RRT members to keep training for the upcoming assessment.

The arbitrator rejected the Town’s argument that Boyd was engaged in a hobby that had no connection to his employment. The fact that Officer Boyd enjoyed weight lifting and had a long history of regular fitness training was irrelevant. The heightened physical requirements of Boyd’s specialized team meant that he did not have the option to stop training. Also, the arbitrator noted that officers already committed to physical fitness are more likely to serve on a team that requires a high level of fitness.

The Town was ordered to restore Boyd’s wages and benefits to the level they would have been set at had his request for §111F benefits been originally granted.  The town will also have to restore all of the paid leave time Boyd was required to use during his recovery.

This is an important decision for Massachusetts police officers and fire fighters. It is not uncommon for injuries to occur while training to meet required physical fitness standards, and this award provides strong support for the argument that those injuries are compensable.

Read the Arbitrator’s Award…

In Our Opinion...

SJC Grants Rare Victory To Public Employees – Deceased Employee Entitled To 72% Retirement For Suffering Heart Attack Upon Being Told Of Layoff

Sandulli Grace Staff March 2, 2009

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, as we’ve indicated frequently on this blog, has issued a number of decisions that are unfavorable, and occasionally hostile, to public employees in general and public safety employees in particular.  However, in Retirement Bd. of Salem v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd, SJC-10215 (February 24, 2009), the SJC granted a huge victory to public employees. 

In this case, a public employee suffered a disabling heart attack upon being told by her supervisor that her job was being eliminated in a few months.  After work and within one hour of hearing this news, the employee suffered a heart attack.  She was briefly hospitalized.  She never returned to work.  Instead, she immediately filed for an accidental disability retirement, which generally provides 72 percent of the employee’s recent salary, pursuant to M.G.L. c.32, §7.

 A public employee who suffers a mental or emotional disability as a result of a “bona fide personnel action” (i.e., a legitimate transfer, demotion, etc) is ineligible for accidental disability retirement.  Here, the Retirement Board denied benefits because it claimed that the heart attack arose from news of a bona fide personnel action.  The SJC disagreed, ruling that the physical, as opposed to emotional/mental, injuries that result from a bona fide personnel action remain eligible for accidental disability retirement.  In other words, Chapter 32, §7 denies accidental disability retirement benefits to employees who, for instance, suffer a permanent psychological disability as a result of layoff news, but does not deny benefits if the exact same news results in a permanent physical disability.

In the decision, the SJC also affirmed that disabling injuries, to qualify for accidental disability retirement, must occur while working and not merely “at work.”  In other words, the employee likely would not have been eligible for benefits had the heart attack resulted from learning at work about a family tragedy.  The SJC concluded here that the employee’s injury arose during the performance of work duties given that she was ordered to participate in a meeting with her supervisor.