Should First Responders Be Entitled To Workplace Protection Under State Labor Laws?

[FidelisAdMortem]

NYC Challenges 9/11 Workplace Injuries
Posted: Monday, March 16, 2009
Updated: March 16th, 2009 01:20 PM EDT
SUSAN EDELMAN
Courtesy of The New York Post

The city has asked a judge to toss out 9/11 claims by 4,600 cops, firefighters, and paramedics, arguing the "uniformed" personnel are not entitled to workplace protection under state labor laws.

The legal maneuver has infuriated Ground Zero responders, who called the city's move "a slap in the face."

New York's Bravest and Finest fought smoldering fires at Ground Zero, dug for human remains and guarded the toxic disaster site for months, the city says. But they don't get the same protections as manual laborers, mechanics and other "working men," the city contends.

"The uniformed plaintiffs do not fall within the class of employees entitled to the protections of the labor law," city lawyer James Tyrrell argues in a motion filed in Manhattan federal court.

Uniformed workers make up half of about 9,000 city employees, construction workers and others who have filed suits against the city in the World Trade Center cleanup.

If the city gets its way, NYPD and Port Authority cops, firefighters and EMTs would also be dismissed from claims against the city's WTC contractors.

But a lawyer for the workers, Paul Napoli, said the city's motion would unfairly "deprive uniformed service workers of basic occupational safety and health under established New York law."

"I'm furious," said ex-detective Mike Valentin, 45, who retired on disability from the NYPD in 2007 with severe lung disease and other ailments. He carries an oxygen tank, sleeps with a machine that helps him breathe, and was recently diagnosed with kidney disease.


"There is a special place in hell reserved for Mike Bloomberg," said Valentin, a father of three who launched the 9/11 Police Aid Foundation to help other ill and struggling responders.

"The callous indifference shown by the mayor enrages me. It's really sad that the city is protecting the contractors more than its unformed services."

[LouC]

Should First Responders Be Entitled To Workplace Protection Under State Labor Laws?

It should be made so going forward but I am not certain it should or could be grandfathered.

Actually I am rather astonished that the aftermath of 9/11 is the catalyst for this issue to have come to the surface.

[FidelisAdMortem]

Im trying to figure out how Im not protected by law. How can you say x worker is not protected, but y worker is. To me I dont see how that will hold up and I dont believe the city will win this motion.

[LouC]

Im trying to figure out how Im not protected by law. How can you say x worker is not protected, but y worker is. To me I don't see how that will hold up and I don't believe the city will win this motion.

Okay, now after doing some looking into this I understand the crux of the issue better.

This is, as I see it, a State vs Federal fight and boondoggle with all the 9/11 Uniformed First Responders as well as contract cleanup workers getting the shaft.

Here are a couple of long but good reads on the issue that your OP article fails miserably in fleshing out.

LINK (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1157978115790)

When Congress wrote a check for $1 billion in federal emergency money to buy insurance for New York City contractors and subcontractors who worked in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, they expected the firefighters and cleanup crews to get paid for illnesses allegedly caused by unsafe working conditions.

Instead what they got is an insurance company that refuses to settle claims.

The ongoing court battle pitting more than 8,000 workers against the World Trade Center Captive Insurance Co. is at a standstill after initial discovery, and awaits New York federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein's decision on Captive's immunity defense.

If successful, Captive's insureds -- the construction companies, the city of New York, and others -- would not be liable for damages, despite the fact that Congress set aside money for such claims.

LINK (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005556300)

Ailing ground zero workers in New York went to court Tuesday to demand that the company overseeing a $1 billion Sept. 11 insurance fund uses it to pay for their health care.

Attorneys for the workers argue that federal officials meant for the money held by the WTC Captive Insurance Co. to be used as compensation for sick workers.

The workers have already filed a class action lawsuit claiming the toxic dust from the World Trade Center site gave them serious, possibly fatal diseases.

On Tuesday they sought compensation from the company in charge of money appropriated by the U.S. Congress to deal with health-related claims linked to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Sad.

[Pudge]

FAM, do you have workplace protection if you're injured or attacked while on duty? If some maniac stabs you or shoots you, does the city foot the hospital bill?

If that's so, then there is no difference to me between that and someone digging through toxic debris in hopes of finding survivors and later, bodies, and guarding the site, especially since that lying witch Christie Todd-Whitman said that the air was perfectly safe.

[FidelisAdMortem]

FAM, do you have workplace protection if you're injured or attacked while on duty? If some maniac stabs you or shoots you, does the city foot the hospital bill?

If that's so, then there is no difference to me between that and someone digging through toxic debris in hopes of finding survivors and later, bodies, and guarding the site, especially since that lying witch Christie Todd-Whitman said that the air was perfectly safe.

Yes we have line of duty death/injury.

[Dual867PowerMac]

You should be protected. Ask Christine Todd Whitman why she told the following lies concerning the quality of the air after the 9/11 attacks:

"Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink. The concentrations are such that they don't pose a health hazard...We're going to make sure everybody is safe."

I think the responders who are suffering from health issues and the loved ones of the responders who died from them think Christine Todd Whitman is, at the very least, a bold-faced liar.

[LouC]

You should be protected. Ask Christine Todd Whitman why she told the following lies concerning the quality of the air after the 9/11 attacks:

"Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink. The concentrations are such that they don't pose a health hazard...We're going to make sure everybody is safe."

I think the responders who are suffering from health issues and the loved ones of the responders who died from them think Christine Todd Whitman is, at the very least, a bold-faced liar.

FYI I am not giving anyone a pass.

There is though a huge difference between the air over an entire city scape and the air on the ground right at the rescue and clean up site.

Still I have issues with people in this day and age not realizing the degree of danger posed by the toxin threat at ground zero and not demanding the ultimate in protection.

Every time I saw photos or video of the people working there and saw some without so much as a cheap dusk mask on I wanted to scream...

That is almost as unforgivable as Whitman's glad handing the situation.

[noose4]

FYI I am not giving anyone a pass.

There is though a huge difference between the air over an entire city scape and the air on the ground right at the rescue and clean up site.

Still I have issues with people in this day and age not realizing the degree of danger posed by the toxin threat at ground zero and not demanding the ultimate in protection.

Every time I saw photos or video of the people working there and saw some without so much as a cheap dusk mask on I wanted to scream...

That is almost as unforgivable as Whitman's glad handing the situation.

i worked on the recovery, the first few days we had ineffective paper masks and then were issued respirators(?) the air in the whole area was what i would call chunky air, you could see it.

[jimjames418]

I don't know about New York, but in Michigan all law enforcement personnel, fire fighters, EMT personnel, and of course all members of the legislature who have stomach, lung, or heart problems are considered as work related injuries and are covered under the workers comp laws as such.

Maybe a class action suit by all personnel against the insurance company that the federal government paid to cover the comp costs for the clean up is in order.

[mwevans1234]

No - fire and police should be paid less than they are.

There are generally a surplus of candidates for police and fire positions and a big waiting list.

This means that these people are making too much money as is. To give these people extra protection is to give them an unnecessary benefit, wasting the money of the taxpayer.

[jimjames418]

Is the City trying to deny worker's compensation claims for those injured on the job, or is it denying tort claims? There is a difference. As I understand it, New York has the "Fireman's Rule" which bars tort claims by firefighters and police officers against persons whose negligence or recklessness caused the hazard resulting in injuries to the officers. As I read it, the uniformed personnel are trying to get a piece of the pie which is being set aside for non-uniformed workers. I can see the legal problem here. While there is no doubt that the uniformed personnel were injured, just by accepting the job of being a firefighter or police officer, they assumed the risk of running into a burning building or reponding to a crisis scene, giving rise to the "Fireman's Rule". However, once the immediate crisis is over, at what point should you suspend the Fireman's Rule, and it becomes a negligent act on the part of the City, State or Fed. govt. to require uniformed personnel to continue to put themselves in harm's way by continuing at a hazardous site, and thereby allowing the uniformed personnel the same legal protections as non-uniformed personnel. And, how many were there because they wanted to get their brothers in uniform out of the site before it was destroyed and weren't ordered by the City to be there? (I can understand that they wanted to do that, but is the City liable for injuries suffered at that point of the uniformed personnel weren't ordered to be there?) Does anyone know the information that Whitman had when she said that the "air was safe" at Ground Zero, or was she just talking out of her posterior?
Workers comp laws take the place of tort in work place injuries and illnesses. If you are injuried or become sick due to a work related cause, you are limited to the workers comp payments, no tort lawsuits allowed against the employer.

[jimjames418]

Im trying to figure out how Im not protected by law. How can you say x worker is not protected, but y worker is. To me I dont see how that will hold up and I dont believe the city will win this motion.
x worker, a city employee, is covered under the workers comp laws, rules, and regulations of the state and city. y worker, a contracted person hired by the city, is covered under the general liability laws, rules, and regulations of the state.

The laws, rules, and regulations of those two groups are completely different.

[FidelisAdMortem]

Those contracted persons are covered by workers comp.

[jimjames418]

Those contracted persons are covered by workers comp.
Yes, from their employer, who is not the city or state. That is the difference. They get workers comp from their employers carrier plus any monies they can extort from the city and/or state.

It is unfair as hell, but that is the way it has been every since the first workers comp laws were passed in the early 1900's.

[FidelisAdMortem]

We shall see how its ruled.

I understand now, although I dont agree with it.