Even with workers comp, certain cases may require high courts’ rulings
Here’s another case demonstrating the complexity of the law and official regulations and their effects on workers’ compensation claims.
As regular readers know, awarding of benefits can often hinge on whether the injured person was actually on duty at the time of the incident. From such a seemingly straightforward proposition, the number of permutations can be staggering. In one case, a woman attacked by a 200-pound chimpanzee faced the prospect of foregoing the potential of a much larger award if she were, in fact, found to be on “on the job,” rather than merely helping her friend who happened to also be her boss. In the same case, the police officer who had to shoot the marauding chimp wound up being mired in an apparent Catch–22, bogged down between provisions for stress stemming caused from responding to human attacks versus those of animal attacks.
We’ve also discussed cases involving fire fighters in West Virgina–which can, in turn, create puzzles for state insurance regulators and homeowners. Another fire fighter-related case is linked to here, where we discuss a former police chief who cut a deal for disability classification, even as he was hiring in to a new job.
Case began in 2002
This case involves a police officer who died during a successful rescue and the denial of benefits to his widow. She’s been battling the system for nearly a decade. Here’s the lede from JDSupra.com: “In August 2002, a 12-year-old boy was swimming in the upper Rio Grande river in New Mexico during a church event when he suddenly slipped below the surface of the water. Kevin Schultz, an off-duty officer from the nearby town of Pojoaque Pueblo, sprang into action and saved the boy from drowning.
“Sadly, Officer Schultz did not survive.”
Ready and willing
Well, that seems pretty conclusive, at first blush, doesn’t it? “an off-duty officer” from a “nearby town”…
Not so fast.
We’ve all heard of public safety officers who are expected to be willing at all times, ready to react to threats of imminent danger as though they are on duty anytime they’re in public– a notch above “regular citizens” who are subject to provisions for failure to render aid.
Indeed, descriptions of Schulz paint just a picture, that of the “kind of officer” who routinely made sure to pack his badge, a radio, and “service revolver” to be handy if he were to encounter an emergency. Of course, in and of itself, Schulz’s point of view may have no bearing on the rules and regulations. In other words, what if he were merely one of those “gung-ho” types?
However, the officer’s widow was reportedly told, ” ‘Your husband, Kevin Schultz, died in the line of duty,’ said Pojoaque lieutenant governor George Rivera (now governor) in 2003.”
Furthermore, “[a]fter his tragic death, he was awarded the U.S. Coast Guard’s Silver Lifesaving Medal and a Medal of Valor from Pojoaque Pueblo. Both citations praised Schultz for bravery beyond the call of duty.”
Beyond the call?
On first reading, you might think, “OK, not only was he on duty by virtue of circumstance but also he went beyond the call of duty–which would tend toward awarding his widow any benefits in question, without question.”
Yet, others might respond, “No, he was literally beyond duty. Heroic? Yes–but nevertheless beyond the limits of duty, or, tragically, “outside his jurisdiction.”
So after winding our way through these considerations, surely a pronouncement from the New Mexico Department of Public Safety seems in order.
According to these, ultimately law-firm derived sources, we not not only have that but from the justice department this, as well:
The New Mexico Department of Public Safety concluded that Schultz had been killed in the line of duty. The Justice Department approved his family for benefits, acknowledging that he was killed in the line of duty. He is listed on memorial walls in both Santa Fe and Washington, D.C., which commemorate officers killed in the line of duty.
If true, that would seem to settle it, right?
Overruled
Nope. According to document linked at JDSupra.com:
Unfortunately, the workers’ compensation system says the fatal accident did not occur during the course of Schultz’s employment, and they denied his widow’s claim for workers’ comp death benefits.
Eight years after her husband’s death Schultz, who is now subsisting on Social Security disability, is still fighting for those benefits and a recent New Mexico Supreme Court ruling may make it possible for her to win.
We’ll look for that court ruling and update this story as we know more.
***********************************************************************************************************************
Frequently enough, a workmen’s compensation case may be so complex as to demand legal representation. However, sometimes what seems like a cut-and-dried situation to an injured worker may result in a smaller award than envisioned–or even a denial. Have you, a friend or a loved one been injured on the job? Whether you’re merely seeking answers about your rights or believe a lawsuit may be necessary, be sure to seek counsel with attorneys trained and experienced in workers’ compensation. Here’s some resources:
