On September 22 the Woodstock Police Pension Board met and decided to pay former Sgt. Steve Gorski for injuries received while he was on duty. In its infinite wisdom, the Board considered all the facts, such as that Gorski had arrived at the scene of a fatal crash in a Woodstock squad car (so he must have been in uniform and on duty) and injured his back while at the crash scene. And then it ruled that he was off-duty at the time he was injured.
Somebody help me here... What am I missing?
Of course, by ruling that he was off-duty, the City is going to owe Gorski less money. That conclusion ought to worry every police officer at the Woodstock P.D.
Gorski's attorney asked the Board if it was going to make payment to Sgt. Gorski before the 21 days had passed, saying that that is "usually" how it happens. Hearing officer John Kelly, from a Naperville law firm (does he get paid his regular hourly rate during his commute to and from Woodstock?), said "they" (whoever "they" are) would start processing payment after verifying salary from the 2007 date of injury (that's FOUR years, folks) and that they would not be holding up on payment.
Famous last words, right?
How does this work? The Police Pension Board rules that payment should be made. Then what? Does some beancounter punch numbers into a calculator, figure out deductions, and order a check cut? Or does the administration of the City (City Manager? City Council? Mayor?) have to approve the action of the Police Pension Board?
How long will they drag that out? And if there is a fight over whether the injury was really an on-duty injury and compensable at a higher rate, will the City go ahead and pay the amount approved by the Police Pension Board now, or will it hold that up while the final battle is fought?
The Board also announced that its written decision would be issued within 21 days of September 22. That would have been October 13, about a week ago. I wonder if it was issued.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Here is a little known legal manuever for the officer. Since the city determined he was 'Off Duty,'
the officer can sue his own auto insurance company under his own personal auto policy clause citing his 'UnInsured Motorist' clause.
Got me an extra 100,000 in my case.
IM assuming the officers injuries were while he was driving? If not, disregard the above.
But, if anybody else is reading this and is injured while driving a company vehicle and they are denied Work Comp Claim for bodily injury, you can file against your own personal policy under the "UnInsured" clause of your policy. MOST people carry 100,000 of UnIsured motorist coverage
The nuts and bolts of why this is a viable option are to long to go into here. Talk to a 'SMART' attorney,
Sgt. Gorski was not driving to the crash scene, when he was injured. He had already arrived and, as I understand it, was trying to aid the driver, when he fell on the ice.
How could the Police Pension Board conclude that he was off-duty?
City Hall informed me that the Board makes its decisions based on fact, not on opinion.
Gus, was there some assertion that this officer had a preexisting back condition, therefore they didnt want to step up and give the man Workers Comp benefits?
As I recall, wasn't this case held up for a long time by the powers that be within the department and this officer was forced into financial ruin?
Or am I thinking of some other case?
I believe that Sgt. Gorski had a previous on-the-job back injury.
How many people can go four years with no paycheck and no compensation for two on-the-job injuries?
Every officer at Woodstock PD should be asking himself, "What if that had happened to me? How would I survive?"
You need to do your homework here Frank. "Line of Duty" and "on duty" are not the same thing in the pension laws.
Post a Comment