All the order of the City of Edgelwater Police Officers, pension board, initial disability hearing, Monday, September 16, 2024. First order of business is Rokall. Okay. Here. Here. I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you. All right. Hey, Joe, are you on the line? Yes, sir. Did you want to make some opening remarks regarding this hearing? Yes, please. If through the chair, if that's okay. And I just want to make sure I apologize. Is this all over there? I believe she is representing our member and the next question is do we have a full board presence? Okay, so Ms. Oliver and our member obviously, there is a due process right to have the hearing before a full board. And so my understanding is that our member has elected to wave that right, but I just wanted to confirm that and just make sure that everybody is on the same page today at the proceeding of the hearing. Yes, Pedro, that's right. She has a great shift there. Okay, perfect. So trustee's, let me just maybe get a set the table a little bit, and then obviously if there's any questions, specifically from our member or her attorney or the board happy to address those. But essentially the purpose of today's informal hearing is to distinguish or deliberate at whether or not the line of duty or the service connected disability benefit application that has been filed with the board by this career should be granted. And by calling in an informal hearing, I just want to point out that it is a bit of a misnomer. It doesn't mean that today's proceedings are already left final or are already left meaningful or impactful. It's really just to distinguish and differentiate from, excuse me, a formal administrative hearing which is very similar to a spot, right? In a formal administrative hearing, there would be a reporter present. The board would hire a special counsel to serve as an advocate myself as the board's attorney who the trustees essentially judge and the jury and these kinds of proceedings. I would be convicted from advising the board and the due process and evidence and that was really an exception like that. And then also taking an advocacy position. So there would be a special counsel of the time by the board to serve an advocate obviously about our attorney's attorney and attorney proceeding. So there would be that this is taken of different treating physicians or witnesses. So you can see we're an administrative here, a formal hearing. It's a lot easier in terms of just having all these things scheduled and setting on the record. It's a lot more expensive. So I'm interested first in the interest of government to inform for the forces, which is hopefully less. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Did I cut somebody off? No, no, Pedro. We understood. Were you done with your statement? Oh, I just almost I'm sorry. I don't know if it's so. So at the at the conclusion of today's hearing, we would look for one of three motions from the board. Either to grant the service-connected or line of duty disability benefits to deny the line of duty or service-connected disability application or the board's choose to table matter for a number of reasons. Any more time to separate, need more that's not available. And obviously we'll forget that for you. Whatever the case may be, if the board does choose to table the matter, then we would reconvene that a later date, and essentially pick up where we left off, right? Again, seeking one of those either denial or accept motion. If the board chooses to deny the benefit application, a member does have the opportunity to appeal that decision, in which case the board would organize a formal administrative hearing, right? The hearing that I mentioned earlier in my comment. At the conclusion of that hearing, our member would again be faced with a choice. Should the board choose to deny the application, our member would have one last opportunity to appeal that decision, and at that point, the appeal would be made to the circuit court in our sitting jurisdiction, and the judge would essentially receive all of the transcripts from the formal hearings. They would receive all of the evidence that was entered as part of that hearing. Each side would write a brief, essentially on one side, articulating why it shouldn't buy the benefit application should be denied, and on the other, why it should't buy the benefit application should be denied and on the other why it should be granted. The judge may request oral arguments before arguments on the matter but either way the judge would then issue a recommended order back to the board. It is a recommended order because the judge does not have the legal authority to actually enter the order on behalf of the board but at that point it would be our recommendation that the board adopt such order and that would be the conclusion of the proceedings. There would be no further appeals available and that decision would be final. Again, absent some sort of accentuating circumstance where the judge viscodes the law or there's something a piece of evidence that the judge was not privy to comes to light, right? But absent something like that, the board would adopt the judge's recommended order and that would be the conclusion of these proceedings. So most importantly for our member, but does everybody understand what the process looks like and what the appeals would look like should that route be taken? Yes, sir. Okay. And then lastly, I just wanted to speak a little bit about the burden in these kinds of cases. And so the burden here of proof lies with our member, with the participants of the plan. And so they have to prove to you our member and her attorney have to prove to the board by a preponderance of the evidence, right? By a greater weight than not. By 51% that our member is totally and permanently incapacitated from rendering useful and efficient service as a police officer. And so if you think about it in terms of there's kind of three legs to the stool, right? The board based on our members' referral to the documents, right, to the record that you guys have before you, they should be able to prove to the board by 51% that the disability is total, that it is permanent, that's that this person has reached, quote unquote, maximal medical improvement. And really what that means is, has this person, my toe, is this person as good as they're going to get under standard accepted Western medical practices, right? Has everything really been done? They can be done to get this person back to a position where they can once again work as a police officer. It is job-specific. So it's a little bit different than, for example, social security, right security where it's gainful employment, where they can do any job. Here for purposes of our benefit, it's almost the inverse. This person can in theory do any job under the sun except for the B.A. police officers and they would be entitled to the benefit. And so, provided that the board and our member kind of understand what the burden is, I just wanted to finish up my comments with the records that we've gathered before you and that you've reviewed for today's hearing. So, and it's the same records that have been provided to our member and her attorney. And I understand that there's some additional records that are going to be introduced today that were inadvertently omitted. But the records that you have before you are pretty lengthy and then so I'll try and synthesize really quickly. Essentially you have both provisions and state laws, as well as your local laws, as well as your ordinance, dealing with eligibility and the disability benefits. You have a copy of the job description, obviously for our sworn trustees, they know the job well and what's required, but for the unsworn, right? And specifically for the board's position, we've provided the job description so that everybody knows, again, this is a job specific so that everyone is aware of exactly what is required to be a police officer. You have all of the pertinent medical records with respect to the disabling illness or injury, right, this being a ledgegesist part of this application. It doesn't mean you have the complete medical history, right? It's just specific to the disabling injury illness that's being claimed. And then you have, finally, I call it a cheat sheet, but it's titled Issues Before the Trust Be. And it's essentially a series of five questions meant, hopefully, to kind of guide the board in its analysis and its discussion. I think similarly it helps guide our members in articulating exactly what the requirements are and where to find those as part of the record so that if you answer each question meant to flow, it's meant to go kind of as a flow chart. If you answer each question in the affirmative, then you go to the next question, right? And then ultimately, if you've answered all the questions, yes, the last question is the member, literally impermanently disabled, from rendering useful and efficient service as a police officer, then presumably answered that question would be yes as well, right, and that would lead you to granting of the benefit application. If, however, somewhere along those questions, somewhere along the line, there's a no, right, then obviously to forge the board, the opportunity to discuss why there's a no, right? Then obviously it affords the board, the opportunity to discuss why there's a no. And should that be the basis for the denial, then we are required to provide our member with specific reason as to the basis for the denial, right? Where did the application fall short? Where was there an insufficiency? So if there's no further questions from the trustees or from our member, then at this point through the chair, I would suggest that we turn it over to Mytholiver. She can present her client's case to the board. Once she's finished up, then I would suggest the board entertain any questions that it may have of Ms. Oliver, of our member, and then it can kind of go from there into its deliberations and discussions ultimately, again, seeking one of those three motions that I mentioned at the beginning of my comments. Thank you, Pedro. Miss Alde. Yes, sir. Over yours. Of course. Or you could use... Oh, yeah, for the recording purposes. Yeah. Or you could use. Oh, yeah, for the recording I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to interject really quickly. So that is the current state of the law for trustees. The guiding cases is one of the most popular police officers and firefighting system. And essentially what that case held was that if an employer terminates an employee for medical reasons, then the pension board is a stop. It's prevented from finding that the disability is not total. And so to to to to mit Oliver's point and kind of from my not total, right? So to speak, has been addressed for you already. And so the answer to that question is yes, there is a total disability because again, due to the medical separation by the city, that is what is required of the pension board to fund. I'm to ask you a long question on certain. During the course of training on April 7, 2023, she was on duty training in the sergeant then, where they were assigned to a report in the Susan Sado person. Upon arrival, sergeant then was engaged subject and it was determined that she was going to be drafted. Upon taking to take you to custody. Just as I wish for somebody to be in the play team and we'll start at men's and officer from where I engaged in engagement. We need to set up a group of men. We just have three gunshot limbs and we'll be able to leave two shots of the cyber mass. Well, on sleep, officer from where I She was offered Greek and chocolate with a veil when we reached the Chatham sign-up. While on sleep, on a circular, um, conformity we are into a viral recipe for life. On a circular, then we came to the manate. She had my hair, washed that, and sent me body, rather as a result of the wound that I was infected. She was diagnosed with and treated through worker conversation with PTSD. Initially, she treated with Dr. Chubana, who was signed in five-hour term, and then Dr. Thurah, who was also assigned to five-hour term conversation. She was medically separated on March 26th, 24th, and then a position with a return back with I would note that Dr. Peter Rose records which I've seen that a true sentence and ongoing report, not only can she not work at the police office, but she has to be sure that some work at all should not be available in any capacity to displace the others to try to do so. This question more is from Dr. Peter Rose. I would note that Dr. Peter Rose records which I've seen that a true sentence and ongoing report, not only can she not work at the police office, to be sure to do so. This picture more in sense, on to Mira as you and IME. IME was Dr. Whitehall. Dr. Whitehall, um, can you tell us that her vision is so much? But we also can confirm that we have vision on treatment providing for retirement to patients. And I'm going to do a little bit of the first one. I'm going to do a little bit of the first one. I'm going to do a little bit of the first one. I'm going to do a little bit of the first one. I'm going to do a little bit of the first one. I'm going to do a little bit of the first one. I'm going to do a little bit of the first one. So that part of the team is shooting with function. She actually had had her service in a public evaluation program on the service of the team. We visited and my new issue in terms of room and her and Dr. Paul in the liberal evaluation as well as my presentation decisions about the media and this is so to it. Therefore, I will ask the students to find in favor of the two of us. That are you, please, coming in. Then we'll start with the answers. And we'll get you in favor of anyone who has an answer. Does anybody have any questions from us, Oliver? I didn't know that, sir. Thank you, Miss Oliver. Are there any public comments regarding this matter? I mean, I think it's pretty clear. You know, the independent medical exam, answered those questions in the affirmative, she suffered injury in life duty, it was a shooting, caused disabilities, disqualifies her from being a police officer and says she probably has reached MMI. Yeah, right in here to quote it, given that the symptoms of her disease seems to have been occurring for at least a year of periods of time, I think from an legal perspective, she probably does meet the criteria for MMI. And the interest of not prolonging this anymore, I would actually go for a motion. My motion would be to grant the benefits, the line of duty benefits to Melissa Quera and the form. And you're probably going to help me with this Pedro. I was doing a bunch of notes here to get it good, but in the form of a service connected pension for the injury she received in line with the due date. I make a second to that motion. Okay. And I'm sorry if I could just jump in during the discussion period and not I think the motion is perfectly well. I would just add, you were charged with determining the effective date of the disability. And so, you, and I don't know if there's a past practice, I just don't recall, I'm talking about ahead, I don't know if the board or for administrator recall specifically, but it can be the first of the month after today. That would be her first eligibility for benefits or it could be another alternate date of disability. You know, another instance is it could be when she terminate it or came off a payroll. That could be another another option. So I would just I would just want to maybe add when the benefit would be effective or as of what date it would be effective. If you'll give us one second so you all know what was the president from the last one to see if we can phone something like that. Yes they're perfect. The last one and he may have been so actively void. Whatever was effective the day after separation. I think that was the one you represented. Yeah. Yeah. I would add what's the date of the medical separation? Okay. With that, it would be for the benefits to start March 26 or 8th. I'm sorry. 26, 2024. That was her actual Dave's operation. Okay, so what do you use the date after that? So it would be March 27th. That work, Pedro? Not perfect. So that would be the March 27th date. I think if she was terminated on the 26th and that would mean that April 1 would be the first, would have been the first entitlement or the first benefit check. Yeah, exactly as Pedro said, benefits starting March 27th and it would be April 1st. We could March 27th. Yeah. Not April 1st. How about we just leave it at the March 27th. We figure March 27th and we'll handle retro pay factored back to March 27th. Okay, so that's the motion. Motion stands second by lower. You have a second idea. Second. Okay. All right, Roku. Joe Moni. Yes. Miles Waller. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion passes. Ms. Grave, appreciate. Ms. Rivera. Appreciate your service. This concludes the. I would go ahead. I was just going to add and just in terms of the what happens next. So obviously our member has been granted the benefit and she'll start receiving those benefits accordingly. But I just want to point out two things really for the record. So first, there is an ongoing obligation on both of our ends, right, on the pension board as well as our member to ensure that we are paying and that she is receiving benefits correctly. And so for a disability benefit, what that means ultimately is that the member remains disabled. So I just wanted to let her know, and obviously her attorneys are aware, that periodically we will be asking our member to verify that continued disability. And so we would just ask that she, if she is going to be moving or changing addresses or anything like that, as she keeps the administrator apprised enough to date so that when we send out that information, she can get it back to us so there's no issues with the benefit. And then the second item was, and I don't know what, I know that I don't think that there's been a resolution on the workers' comp side. I don't know if it's all over if there has or if there hasn't been. But if there is an award or a settlement on the workers' comp, we just need to be made aware of that because potentially there could be an offset to the pension that we are paying in light of that workers' come settlement. So I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware that if there is a settlement or an award that we are made aware of that. Okay, thank you, Pedro. Yes, sir. Any comments? Ms. Oliver? All right. I'll look for a motion to adjourn. Thank you. Yeah. I'm going to say on this line, right, for the meeting. Yes, thank you, Pedro. Give us a second. I'm here. I'm just on mute. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're a shoe buddy. It's thrown me off of Gabri here. Yeah. I think that's me. Thank you. I'm going to start calling. Probably. I'm going to go down here. Go. Oh, yeah. You see my card? Yeah, I got it now. E.P. E.P. I should have moved my hand. Yeah. Yeah. That was not the time for you to ask that question.