A major factor in the lack of use of the civil courts by injured officers has been the availability of worker's compensation plans. Virtually every police officer in the country is covered through his or her department or agency by some form of plan whereby the officer is, in the event of injury, provided with medical care and protected against loss of income. These plans vary greatly in nature and scope of coverage, and many provide only minimal protection, but most officers who suffer a line-of-duty injury can expect to have direct medical expenses provided for, and to continue to receive salary and other benefits during at least some part of the period of disability.

Furthermore, this form of injury compensation is relatively easily obtained; such plans are generally administered directly through the departments themselves or their governmental bodies, and little or no action is normally required by the individual police officer to initiate a claim and to obtain whatever benefits are provided. Furthermore, when medical bills are covered and no income is being lost, the officer may quite reasonably conclude that he or she has been satisfactorily compensated for the injury and feel no need to pursue the matter in a civil court.

Lack of Awareness of the Availability of Civil Remedies

While this is less of a factor today than it was a few years ago, there is some evidence that until relatively recently many police officers were not fully aware of the variety of civil remedies available or the extent of the compensation obtainable through tort action. For example, while virtually every officer know that a civil right action exists for battery, until recently few would have been aware that the system provides for them in some instances with a right of recovery for mental distress unaccompanied by any physical injury. Again, while most officers would be aware that a tort action can be brought to recover the direct expenses such as medical bills of an injury, some might be unaware of the availability of additional damages, e.g., punitive damages, or an award for pain and suffering.

This lack of knowledge has not been entirely confined to the officers involved. All too often, the attorneys consulted by these officers have failed to perceive possible avenues of recovery through lack of understanding of the lesser-known tort remedies.

Unfamiliarity of both officers and attorneys with the scope and extent of civil remedies has therefore played at least some small part in the non-user of the civil court system by injured officers.

Official and/or Public Discouragement of Civil Suits by Police

Even if the injured officer is aware of the availability of civil remedies and is inclined to pursue them, the officer may be discouraged from doing so by official or public antipathy toward the use of civil remedies by police officers. Law enforcement agencies may, as a matter of policy, attempt to dissuade their personnel from filing civil suits based upon incidents arising in the line of duty. While this intra-departmental opposition may not be expressed openly, or even admitted publicly, it can be brought to the attention of the officer informally but with great force.

In addition, the officer and the officer's department may be affected by opposition from segments of the public outside of the department itself. Civil rights groups, for example, tend to oppose the use of civil suits by police officers, and this opposition may result in pressure being brought to bear upon political leaders to discourage officers from resorting to civil actions.

Continued on Page 3

Back to Page 1

Back to Your Rights