Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Occupational Disability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board sends police disability application back to physician for clarification and orders policy review; other disability referrals sent to doctors
Summary
The board returned Officer Jacob Evans's disability application to the physician for clarification because of inconsistent entries on the job-responsibilities form and voted to send the fund's application-acceptance procedures to the organizational subcommittee for review.
At its March 12 meeting the Lexington Fayette Urban County Police and Fire Retirement Fund board returned an application from Officer Jacob Evans, Division of Police, for total and permanent occupational disability to the submitting physician for clarification and placed the application-acceptance process on a subcommittee review.
Staff reported a discrepancy: the on-the-job responsibilities form had every duty marked "able to perform," while separate comments on the same form indicated restrictions. Because of that inconsistency the board amended an approval motion to require clarification from the physician before the board would accept the application. The amendment was seconded and passed on a voice vote. The board also voted to instruct the organizational subcommittee to review how the fund accepts disability applications and to recommend expectations and procedures for future submissions.
The board took related actions on other disability matters on the agenda: it voted to send James Cropper, Division of Fire, to appropriate medical reviewers for conversion from an existing service retirement to a total and permanent occupational disability; it voted to send Patrick McMullen, Division of Police, to appropriate doctors for evaluation for the same conversion. Those motions passed on voice votes with no recorded opposition.
For Christopher Oakley, Division of Fire, medical reports had been completed and distributed. A trustee raised a discrepancy in physician Burke's paperwork: a cited combined whole-body impairment was 39 percent in Burke's response, while the form included a 35 percent figure. Staff said it would call the physician to clarify the correct percentage and would bring the clarification back to the board for informational purposes; the board moved forward with approval of the disability at the appropriate rate pending that clarification.
Board members said the frequency of inconsistent forms has increased and described the matter as a recurring administrative issue that warrants a formal subcommittee review to set expectations for physicians, applicants and staff about how forms are completed and how the board will verify them.
