them in the complete and honest manner in which they are in-
structed by their attorneys.
However, this nonchalant attitude can have serious repercus-
sions on the affected law enforcement officers. Most attorneys
defending either a workers’ compensation case or a lawsuit
on behalf of an employer have a point person with whom they
consult to secure information and documents. In the context of
law enforcement workers’ compensation cases or lawsuits, that
point person is usually either a commanding officer or an offi-
cer very high in the hierarchy of the plaintiff/petitioner. In oth-
er words, it is usually a person with a command of the rules and
regulations governing the law enforcement agency of which the
plaintiff/petitioner is a member.
Plus, you must remember that the law enforcement offi-
cer who brings a workers’ compensation claim or a lawsuit is
not necessarily being held in the highest esteem by his or her
commanding officers. Sometimes, the filing of such a workers’
compensation claim or a lawsuit actually leads to animosity by
commanding officers towards the plaintiff/petitioner.
For that reason, the commanding officers of the plaintiff/
petitioner may very well be looking for an opportunity to mete
out discipline. Unfortunately, the law enforcement officer who
fails to advise his or her agency of what prescription medica-
tions he or she is taking, but then truthfully discloses that infor-
mation when certifying answers to interrogatories in a work-
ers’ compensation claim or a lawsuit, in offering up on a silver
platter to his or her commanding officers the opportunity for
discipline.
More disturbing is that the law enforcement officer involved
would have virtually no defense to the charges that would be
filed and could not argue that said charges are retaliatory.
Some attorneys have attempted to use the doctrine of sub-
stantial compliance to argue that the truthful answering of in-
terrogatories is the equivalent of putting the law enforcement
agency on notice of prescription use. The New Jersey Supreme
Court has described substantial compliance as follows:
The equitable doctrine of substantial compliance
has deep roots in English common law...Its purpose is
to avoid the harsh consequences that flow from techni-
cally inadequate actions that nonetheless meet a stat-
ute’s underlying purpose...It is a doctrine based on jus-
tice and fairness, designed to avoid technical rejection
of legitimate claims…
However, most hearing officers, administrative law judges,
Superior Court judges, and appellate judges have rejected the
notion of substantial compliance. And the vast majority of the
time, the discipline meted out to the affected law enforcement
officer for failing to report his or her prescriptions has been sus-
tained.
The law enforcement officer, his or her PBA union, and his or
her attorney have much more leeway and many more options
dealing with the law enforcement agency that attempts to dis-
cipline one of its members for his or her use of a prescription
medication than any of them have with dealing with the law
enforcement agency that catches one of its members not prop-
erly reporting prescribed medications.d
A former municipal police officer, county corrections officer and
municipal prosecutor, Stuart J. Alterman has represented law
enforcement officers