Tag Archives: “heart attack”

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.

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.