Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Line Of Duty Leave Restoration topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Police, firefighters urge automatic restoration of leave used while awaiting 111F determinations

3650572 · June 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Representatives of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police asked the Joint Committee on Public Safety to approve a bill that would automatically restore accrued leave used by police officers and firefighters while a determination under Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 41, section 111F is pending.

Representatives of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police asked the Joint Committee on Public Safety to approve a bill that would automatically restore accrued leave used by police officers and firefighters while a determination under Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 41, section 111F is pending.

The testimony said the change is intended to prevent injured employees from having to sue municipalities to recover sick, vacation or personal time used while waiting for a line‑of‑duty determination.

"On behalf of mass coalition of police, nearly 6,000 members, we'd like to express our strong support for House Bill 28 45, an act relative to a bridal while awaiting a determination of 1 11 f," said Timothy King, in‑house counsel for the Massachusetts Coalition of Police. King said insurers and outside parties have extended review timelines and that some municipalities have required employees to exhaust accrued leave while their cases are pending.

King told the panel the proposed change "ensures that an injury is all when it's ultimately deemed deemed work related and covered under 1 11 F. Any accrued time used during the interim determination period is automatically restored." He said the bill would bring "consistency, fairness, and efficiency to the process and would eliminate unnecessary disputes and litigation."

Committee members asked procedural questions but did not take a vote during the hearing. Witnesses and lawmakers noted the subject had received prior committee action in earlier sessions and emphasized the measure is framed as a remedial, procedural change rather than a new benefit with an immediate fiscal cost.

No formal motion or vote on the bill was recorded during the hearing.

Supporters asked the committee to report the bill favorably so it can move through the legislative process.

The hearing was livestreamed and the committee invited written testimony by the posted deadline.