Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the On The Job Injury topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board moves to end sheriff's OJI pay deviation after two current cases close; legal staff flagged equity and tax concerns
Summary
Sumner County's Self-Insurance Board voted to allow two currently affected employees to finish their on-the-job-injury (OJI) claims under existing pay arrangements but directed staff to enforce the county OJI policy thereafter and to quantify the historic fiscal impact of a sheriff department pay deviation.
Sumner County's Self-Insurance Board addressed a multi-year practice in which the sheriff's department has been paying an additional one-third of employees' pay for on-the-job injuries (OJI) above the county plan's standard benefit structure.
County legal and benefits staff told the committee they have questioned the legal authority for the department-level deviation and raised concerns about equity across county employees and tax treatment of the supplemental payments. A legal advisor noted that the county plan language identified the OJI benefit as an exclusive county-provided payment, and expressed concern that the sheriff's practice effectively carved out a subset of employees for enhanced pay and benefits (including retirement/TCRS credit accruals) not provided to other county employees.
Because the practice dates back to 2007–2008, committee members debated next steps and the potential fiscal and legal consequences. After discussion, a motion carried to allow two employees currently receiving the higher payment from the sheriff’s budget to continue receiving those payments through the end of their existing OJI claims, and to enforce the county's OJI policy (the standard two-thirds/66% structure described in the plan) for future cases. Legal staff was directed to provide a formal opinion and staff were asked to compute historic costs associated with the deviation so the committee can quantify fiscal exposure.
The committee asked staff to coordinate outreach to the sheriff's office and to brief the commission about the policy change. Members emphasized the need for a uniform county practice and flagged potential tax and benefit-credit implications if payments were continued for some employees and not others.
