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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT