Advertisement

Measure Proposed on City Ballot : Pay-Back Change Aids Disability Claimants

Share
Times Staff Writer

In December, 1983, Police Detective Norman R. Eckles was shot while serving a search warrant stemming from a narcotics investigation in South-Central Los Angeles. The wound paralyzed the then 36-year-old Eckles from the waist down.

In putting in a claim for a disability pension, Eckles discovered to his dismay that he would have to go several months without any pay. There would be no check, he learned, until the funds he had collected several years ago from a city workers’ compensation claim were paid back.

Clearly, said James Kadar, a Los Angeles lawyer who specializes in personal injury and workers’ compensation cases and who represented Eckles, the law is “discriminatory” against disabled police officers, firefighters and paramedics who are affected by the city’s disability pension regulations.

Advertisement

An Imbalance Seen

Charter Amendment C on the June 3 Los Angeles city primary ballot is billed by proponents as an important step toward correcting what they see as a serious imbalance in the law.

Under current law, Los Angeles police officers, firefighters and paramedics who become disabled in the line of duty are entitled to a disability pension.

But the City Charter requires that before such disabled employees receive disability pensions, they must repay workers’ compensation awards that they have received from the city in previous years whether a previous injury was related to the current one or not. (This regulation doesn’t affect noninjury pensions.)

“It’s not as cold-blooded as it looks,” said Gary Mattingly, general manager of Los Angeles’ Department of Pensions. “We’re substituting a very liberal (city disability) pension for a more meager (city) workers’ compensation award. You have to pay it back because we’re substituting something better for it.”

Installment Plan

A 1980 Los Angeles Charter amendment approved by voters gave a break to employees hired after 1981 in that it allowed them to repay earlier workers’ compensation claims in installments. Under the new rules, the monthly payments had to be at least 25% of their disability pension.

But police officers, firefighters and paramedics hired before 1981 do not have installment payment privileges and must repay all of their workers’ compensation claims before they receive a penny of disability pension cash.

Advertisement

“These employees must wait, on the average, over six months after becoming disabled before the first pension check is received,” says the ballot argument in support of the measure. “There is no form of compensation received by these employees from the city during the six- month period.”

If passed, Charter Amendment C would bring employees hired before 1981 into conformance with those hired after that year. Thus, they could qualify for at least 75% of their disability pension each month until their previous workers’ compensation awards were paid off.

“It’s a motherhood, apple pie thing,” said Don R. Forrest, president of United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, AFL-CIO, in explaining why he expects the measure to pass. “It’s a fairer way of paying back the city.”

Supporters of Measure

Others supporting the amendment along with the firefighters’ union are the Police Protective League; City Councilman Richard Alatorre, chairman of the Charter and Elections Committee; Councilman Hal Bernson, chairman of the Police, Fire and Public Safety Committee, and members of the city Board of Pension Commissioners.

There is no opposing ballot argument.

City Hall fiscal analysts said the ballot measure would have no significant financial impact on the city-managed pension fund system since there would still be a requirement to pay back workers’ compensation benefits--albeit on an installment basis.

Not all cities have a pay-back provision for public safety employees injured on the job. The reason behind the Los Angeles installment plan, said Ramon Olivares, a senior administrative analyst, is that “our disability retirement benefits are a little more generous than other jurisdictions.”

Advertisement
Advertisement