PBA editor’s note: While the primary subjects of this article are volunteers, many of our PBA members are volunteers in other
public-safety areas and could find themselves or their families in a similar unfortunate situation.
Workmen’s compensation for
line-of-duty death:
How many first-responder families
have been shortchanged?
n BY ESKIL S. DANIELSON
During these times when we are experiencing serious emergen-
cies more frequently, both natural and manmade, many career law
enforcement officers, firefighters and EMS personnel share their
training and skills in volunteer public-safety agencies in their (usu-
ally smaller) hometowns. Indeed, cross-training and interoperabil-
ity are terms associated with contemporary emergency manage-
ment.
Career and volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel, as well as
career law enforcement officers and volunteer reserve or auxiliary
law enforcement officers, are required by law to be covered by em-
ployers for workmen’s compensation. Line-of-duty death compen-
sation is fraught with roadblocks.
Why should we be concerned? Let’s look at an open case and
statute C.34:15-7.3.
CASE IN POINT
On January 8, 2013, Stillwater EMS 25-year member Bill Martin,
an EMT, responded to a structure fire with entrapment. On scene,
Bill and his team were advised that a severely burned patient had to
be transported to a medevac landing for transport to a burn center.
Bill was driving the ambulance en route to the landing zone when
he had a heart attack. Despite immediate basic and advanced car-
diac life support, Bill died without regaining consciousness.
Now, more than four years later, Bill’s widow, Teri Martin, a fel-
low EMT, has recently been offered a settlement of $150,000. At this
point, she should have already received almost $200,000 based on
the New Jersey workmen’s compensation death benefit to widows
of about $40,000 per year. That amount, determined by the Legisla-
ture, is for a minimum of 10 years ($400K+) and then for her natural
life or until remarriage. The settlement offer doesn’t add up to the
loss of her husband’s income, much less make up for the loss of her
husband. The offer was rejected.
What’s happened to Teri Martin is also occurring to other wid-
ows of first responders, some with small children. Insurance indus-
try procrastination and badgering, well-documented in the litera-
ture and on Google, delays claims to the point where the widow has
a choice between accepting an unfair settlement or bankruptcy.
That highly immoral scenario could not occur for more than four
years without either neglect or outright collusion involving the in-
surers, attorneys, state agencies and even workmen’s compensa-
tion judges.
THE STATUTORY LAW
After some poor handling of first-responder workmen’s com-
pensation claims by the insurance industry prior to 1988, the Leg-
islature passed and the governor signed into law C.382 P.L. 1987,
which became C.34:15-7.3: “Worker’s compensation for injury,
death occurring while responding to law enforcement, public safe-
ty, or medical emergency.”
The chapter reads, in pertinent part, that “a. for any cardiovascu-
lar or cerebrovascular injury or death which occurs to an individu-
al … while that individual is engaged in a response to an emergen-
cy, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the injury or death
is compensable under C.34:15-1 et seq, if that injury or death oc-
curs while that individual is responding, under orders from a com-
petent authority, to a law enforcement, public safety, or medical
emergency.”
The covered first responders listed include virtually all career
and volunteer police, fire and EMS personnel.
Emergency as defined: “c.…means any combination of circum-
stances requiring immediate action to prevent the loss of human
life, the destruction of property, or the violation of criminal laws…
and includes but is not limited to the suppression of fire, a fire-
manic drill, the apprehension of a criminal, or medical or rescue
service.”
In case that is unclear, the legislative intent/summary published
concurrent with the passage of C.34:15-7.3 reads as follows: “This
bill (now law) relieves firefighters, police officers, and rescue, first
aid, and ambulance squad volunteers or their beneficiaries, from
the burden of proving that their cardiovascular and cerebrovascu-
lar injuries or deaths are directly and specifically related to their
actions in the line of duty before these injuries or deaths can be
deemed compensable under the workmen’s compensation act.”
The law sounds like it should put a first responder’s mind at ease
when he or she leaves home and family to go on duty or to respond
to an emergency. One can say, “If I am seriously injured or die, at
least my family will be financially cared for by my community’s in-
surance carrier.”
ANOTHER OPEN CASE
On January 16, 2016, Lakeland Emergency Squad 35-year mem-
ber and immediate past chief Scott Danielson responded to a re-
port of a motor vehicle accident less than a mile from his home in
Andover Borough (where he was also a councilman and emergency
management coordinator). Subsequently, it was determined that
the MVA was on Rt. 206, a mile farther in Byram Township. Divert-
ing to the new location, Scott learned that his daughter was injured
in the accident. On arrival, he determined that his daughter, found
on the cold ground, was the most seriously injured. He got on his
knees to attend to her care and appeared to wince upon getting up
and helping lift the stretcher many minutes later. Scott followed
the ambulance to the hospital, where he immediately collapsed in
the ER. Despite immediate care from the ER team and being flown
to a specialized cardiac care hospital, Scott died without regaining
consciousness.
Based on the state law, one would think that the widows of these
selfless volunteers would have been awarded workmen’s compen-
sation. Not so. Bill’s wife has had to obtain a lawyer, and after four
and a half years she has not been compensated. Scott’s wife has
been in the same situation for 18 months now.
Both widows are now required to pay for the mortgages, proper-
ty taxes and medical insurance once covered by their husbands’ in-
comes. This has been devastating, not to mention the loss of their
respective loved ones, which is also shared by their children.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
After several months of investigating the issue in the interest of
the entire first-responder community, it is apparent that the De-
partment of Labor and Workplace Development, the insurance in-
dustry, the workmen’s compensation attorneys and possibly even
the judges are not considering the legislative intent. In fact, they
CONTINUED ON PAGE 50
www.njcopsmagazine.com
■ AUGUST 2017 49