ILNews

Justices: injured cop prevented by law from rejoining force

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A police officer who was injured in the 1980s and received disability benefits – but later was physically able to rejoin the police department – is statutorily prohibited against returning to the force, the Indiana Supreme Court decided in answering a certified question.

Mark Thatcher was a City of Kokomo police officer in the 1980s. After four years of service, he hurt his knee in the line of duty and eventually received Public Employees’ Retirement Fund disability benefits pursuant to his membership in the “1977 fund.” After more than 20 years of receiving the disability pension, surgery allowed Thatcher’s knee to be repaired and he asked for reinstatement to active duty.

Initially, the local pension board voted to reinstate Thatcher, but the Board of Works notified PERF that no suitable work was available for Thatcher. He then filed a federal suit claiming discrimination on the basis of age and disability. Thatcher was 49 at the time he asked for reinstatement.

When the city finally received money to hire more officers, it believed it was statutorily prevented from reinstating Thatcher based on Indiana Code 36-8-4-7(a): “A person may not be appointed as a member of the police department or fire department after the person has reached thirty-six (36) years of age. A person may be reappointed as a member of the department only if the person is a former member or a retired member not yet receiving retirement benefits of the 1925, 1937, 1953, or 1977 fund and can complete twenty (20) years of service before reaching sixty (60) years of age.”

The federal court sent the justices the certified questions: “1) Does Indiana Code section 36-8-4-7(a) apply to a member of the 1977 Fund who is receiving disability benefits and who has been determined to have been recovered pursuant to 35 Indiana Administrative Code section 2-5-5(c)? 2) If yes, does Indiana Code section 36-8-8-12(e) apply to determination of eligibility under Indiana Code section 36-8-4-7(a), such that time spent receiving disability benefits counts toward 'years of service' as that term is used in Indiana Code section 36-8-4-7(a)?”

The justices determined that I.C. 36-8-4-7(a) applies to a member of the 1977 fund who is receiving disability benefits and who has been determined to have been recovered pursuant to 35 Indiana Administrative Code 2-5-5(c). They also held that the time period during which a person receives disability benefits under Indiana Code 36-8-8-12(e) doesn’t count toward “years of service” as that term is used in I.C. 36-8-4-7(a).

“We commend Thatcher for his commitment to police service and for his efforts to return to active duty on the KPD. And we sympathize with his frustrations at not being able to return to serve his community in this capacity. Indeed the City initially believed it could offer Thatcher a position when one became available. The City later realized, and correctly so, that there was a statutory prohibition against allowing Thatcher’s return to the Department,” wrote Justice Robert Rucker in Mark J. Thatcher v. City of Kokomo, et al., No. 94S00-1109-CQ-570.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT