Opinion: Put burden of proof on officers

Many people would accept the proposition that a police officer disabled on the job deserves more generous compensation than another public employee. After all, police work can be risky. However, what if the disability is caused by heart disease or hypertension? Should that be automatically covered as a work-related disability, even if the police officer is overweight and a heavy smoker? In that circumstance, many reasonable Floridians might argue that the job didn't necessarily cause the disability.

This is not just a hypothetical question. If two bills before the Legislature become law, all local police and corrections officers who are unable to perform their duties because of tuberculosis, heart disease or hypertension would be automatically eligible for an "in-line-of-duty disability." The result would be increased pension and workers' compensation costs for local governments, which is to say an added burden on taxpayers. Of course the Legislature, as it is wont to do, fails to compensate cities for the added liability.

Firefighters and state police officers already have this generous pension benefit. It works this way: Any employee under the state retirement system who becomes disabled because of an illness or injury not related to employment gets a benefit worth at least 25 percent of pay. An injury or illness in the line of duty brings a much larger payment: at least 42 percent for most employees and 65 percent for police and corrections officers.

For most state employees with debilitating heart disease or hypertension, it would be very difficult if not impossible to prove their jobs caused the condition. State police and corrections officers, however, don't have to submit a single piece of evidence, because the law assumes those two diseases, plus tuberculosis, are suffered in the line of duty.

Now, some lawmakers want to extend that mandatory benefit to local police and corrections officers in more than 500 city and county law enforcement agencies. And to make it easier for an officer to claim a disability from other injury or illness, the similar bills (SB 278 and HB 5) would shift the burden of proof from the officer (as it is now) to the local agency. If an officer contends he has been disabled in the line of duty, it would be up to the city to prove otherwise.

The Legislature admits these bills would cause local governments "to expend an unknown amount of funds," according to the House analysis. The price tag is likely to be in the millions of dollars. Some officers would retire earlier and with more income, and workers' compensation claims would become more costly.

Police officers deserve, and have gotten, special consideration for the risks they take. But legislators should abandon these two bills. They would impose yet another burden on local governments with no effort by the state to help with the cost. Currently, police unions negotiate pension benefits with local governments as part of an overall compensation package. The availability of city tax revenues and a balance of pay and benefits are a necessary part of the collective-bargaining process. Police unions are effective negotiators and don't need a state-mandated advantage.

Finally, police officers should take some responsibility for their own health. A police officer who smokes and overeats likely will develop heart disease or hypertension, even if he sits at a desk all day. We should give officers a chance to prove that those conditions are job-related, but the burden of proof should fall on the officer. That is fair to police officers and taxpayers alike.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page