Questioning of Stress Claims

Your Jan. 11 editorial asked for an explanation about questions a deputy city attorney asked LAPD Officer Virginia Acevedo about her personal relationships in connection with her worker’s compensation claim for job-related stress.

Concern has been raised by the ACLU, City Council and news media that Acevedo was asked those questions--which she refused to answer--because she is a lesbian. My response to those concerns is that neither gender nor sexual orientation is a factor in pursuing that line of questioning in worker’s compensation stress claims. It has been a long-standing practice of the worker’s compensation division of my office to question all stress claimants regardless of gender or sexual orientation about personal relationships in order to determine whether there may have been causes of the stress outside the workplace.

In the case of Acevedo, I have reviewed the matter and am satisfied that there is no basis for the contention that the deputy city attorney’s line of questioning was pursued because of her sexual orientation. However, while I believe the line of inquiry concerning Acevedo’s claim was appropriate, it appears that the deputy city attorney’s request for information was overly broad. I have instructed the attorney to narrow the scope of inquiry.

Your editorial also raised a question about another long-standing practice of my worker’s compensation division. We regularly ask the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board to determine if claimants should be required to answer questions to which they have refused response during deposition. We also regularly seek orders from the board to discontinue benefits if claimants are ordered to answer and still refuse to do so. We do this routinely to ensure that claimants provide examining physicians with all the information needed to verify a claim.

I believe that stress claimants should receive those benefits to which they are entitled. However, as the elected city attorney, I am ultimately responsible to my clients--the taxpayers of this city who foot the bill for these benefits--and our office has vigorously challenged stress claims since they began to proliferate in the 1980s. While some intrusion into the privacy of claimants may well be required, my deputies will make every attempt to perform that duty with sensitivity and respect and go no further than is necessary to ascertain the facts.

JAMES K. HAHN

Los Angeles