HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4066
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4066)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/16/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Response to SCC Grand Jury Report on Disability Retirements
Title: Approval of City of Palo Alto's Response to the 2012-2013 Santa Clara
County Civil Grand Jury Report - "The State of Public Safety Disability
Retirement Rates In The County"
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
RECOMMENDATON
Staff recommends that Council approve the following response to the 2012-2013 Santa Clara
County Civil Grand Jury Report, “The State of Public Safety Disability Retirement Rates In The
County.” Staff further recommends that the Mayor send a letter to the Grand Jury with the
City’s Response by the deadline, September 30, 2013.
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2013, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County issued a report that surveyed the
extent to which job-related Industrial Disability Retirements are occurring for all Public Safety
agencies in Santa Clara County. The Grand Jury also focused on the processes agencies use to
review disability retirement applications between July, 2008 and July, 2012. A copy of the
Grand Jury report is included as Attachment A.
DISCUSSION
The City’s detailed response to the finding and two recommendations are included in
Attachment B. The City does not agree with the Grand Jury’s finding that the City of Palo Alto
has the highest IDR rate in the county. Staff did not have an opportunity to reconcile the
differences because the Grand Jury had disbanded. However, the City agrees wholly with the
Grand Jury’s assessment that it is beneficial to keep public safety employees healthy and
productive, reducing their injuries and illnesses.
Attachments:
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Attachment B. Grand Jury Response (DOC)
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information (PDF)
Exhibit 2. Number of Worker's Compensation Claims (PDF)
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment A. Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report
Attachment B. City of Palo Alto Response to Grand Jury Report
1 9/11/2013
City of Palo Alto’s Response to the 2012-2013 Santa Clara County Civil grand Jury report –
“The State of Public Safety Disability Retirement rates in the County”
FINDINGS AND RECOMMEDNATIONS
Finding 3
Averaged over the past five years, the City of Palo Alto has the highest IDR rate in the county at
51%.
RESPONSE:
The City of Palo Alto disagrees with the finding. The Grand Jury reported that Palo Alto has the
highest percentage of Industrial Disability Retirements in the county at 51%. The City of Palo
Alto is not clear on how the total was calculated. Based on the data provided to the Grand Jury
on November 9, 2012 (see Exhibit 1) the City found the percentage to be lower than indicated
in the Grand Jury report. As illustrated in the table below, the City finds its percentage of
Industrial Disability Retirements (IDR) to be 34%. While the City found one IDR incorrectly
reported to the Grand Jury as an Industrial Disability Retirement for a non-sworn employee
who suffered an occupational injury, this would not account for the difference.
Total
Requirements
Service
Retirements
Industrial
Disability
Retirements
Percentage
IDR
Fire 35 25 10 28.6%
Police 27 16 11 40.1%
Total 62 41 21 33.87%
Based on the City’s figures, the City of Palo Alto’s IDR rates for safety personnel are consistent
with the average of other entities in Santa Clara County. In addition, Palo Alto’s safety IDR rates
from July, 2008 - July, 2012 represent a decrease in the industrial disability rate for Firefighters
and for Police personnel since a separate audit on this issue in April 2005, by the Palo Alto City
Auditor. That report indicated that 40.7% of Firefighter and 45.5% of Police retirements were
classified as IDR.
IDRs result from injuries on the job; therefore it is helpful to begin the analysis with workers’
compensation claim rates. During the last five years at the City, workers’ compensation rates
for Police have declined 12% and for rates for Fire have declined 20%. The graphs in Exhibit 2
indicate a gradual decline in the total number of claims. In FY 12-13, the Fire Department
experienced an all-time low of 14 total claims while Police decreased their total claims to 22.
The decrease in claims for Police and Fire substantiates that the City of Palo Alto is actively
preventing injuries and providing safe work conditions; however, the goal must be to continue
this trend of reduced claim numbers.
Attachment B. City of Palo Alto Response to Grand Jury Report
2 9/11/2013
Lower workers compensation claim rates are reflected in lower IDR rates for the City. The
City’s’ IDR rates averaged 34% over the past five years (FY 08 to FY 12 – the span of time
studied by the Grand Jury). This places Palo Alto near the average of entities reporting to the
Grand Jury - 30% IDR rate over the past five years. Thus Palo Alto, with more firefighters than
other cities in the County except San Jose, experiences an average number of IDRs compared
with cities in the County.
Recommendation 3a
The City of Palo Alto should identify what factors other than its high percentage of firefighters
influence its IDR rate.
RESPONSE:
The City of Palo Alto agrees with this recommendation 3a. Identifying the factors that may
contribute to the City’s IDR rate is critical to understanding what actions are needed to lower
the rate. And, low IDR rates reflect higher levels of health and productivity in the work force,
and low IDR rates reduce Workers’ Compensation costs that can be used for other department
programs. The City evaluated both the types of claims and the process for submitting claims to
inform this analysis.
Based on the City’s analysis of claims, the public safety officers identified in the Grand Jury
report were an average age of 49.5 years old. The nature of claims involved varied significantly
primarily involving injuries to knees, backs, neck and heart. This average age is common for
public safety officers as found in the Rand report, “Occupational Safety and Health for Public
Safety Employees,” which analyzed data from 29 different public employers in California and
found that both firefighters and police officers become more susceptible to disability as they
age. Public Safety Officers are more likely to claim permanent disability benefits after an injury
at older ages. The Palo Alto experience is the same as that described in the Rand Report. Public
Safety Officers had served an average of 22 years on the job in the Palo Alto Fire Department.
The Police Officers personnel had served an average of 13 years on the job in the Palo Alto
Police Department. Some of the personnel had years of work in other organizations prior to
their Palo Alto service.
While most public safety officers identified in this report suffered serious permanent
disabilities, others suffered injuries or illnesses that were not as severe yet incapacitated the
officer from performing work duties. Although all officers completed long term medical
treatment, their injuries still precluded them from performing their public safety officer duties
and thus were unable to continue working in their jobs on a permanent basis and therefore
sought retirement. Some agencies, such as the City of San Jose, provide an option for
permanently disabled officers to remain employed in a permanent light duty capacity. This may
involve desk work or other limited-duty functions. Palo Alto does not offer this option.
In Palo Alto, all permanent public safety positions require the ability to perform the full duties
of the job, such as fighting fires, lifting gurneys and making forcible arrests. Palo Alto offers
light duty on a temporary basis for sworn personnel who are continuing in treatment and
Attachment B. City of Palo Alto Response to Grand Jury Report
3 9/11/2013
expected to progress towards recovery. At the point that an officer is certified to have a
permanent disability that prevents performance of essential duties, the officer must elect
retirement or may retain in public employment in a non-sworn capacity. By requiring that all
sworn personnel maintain the ability to perform the full duties of their positions, Palo Alto
ensures that the Police and Fire Departments prioritize direct and essential services to the
public. At the same time, the decision not to create permanent light duty positions may
contribute to a somewhat higher IDR rate compared to agencies that retain sworn officers who
are permanently unable to perform the essential duties of a police officer or firefighter.
Because the City of Palo Alto is bound to follow the California Workers Compensation and
CalPERS retirement laws, it is limited in its ability to dispute retirements as not being entitled to
an IDR. A public safety officer applying for IDR is required to provide documentation based on
competent medical opinion that substantiates they are a Qualified Injured Worker and
“incapacitated for the performance of duty” as defined under the Public Employee’s Retirement
Law (PERL) Government Code Section 20026. Once City of Palo Alto staff receives medical
documentation from the officer’s treating physician and a second opinion from a Workers’
Compensation Board certified Qualified Medical Examiner (QME), it is reviewed to determine if
it meets the criteria based on this state law. The QME is not selected by the City of Palo Alto.
As part of the workers’ compensation claim process, the public safety officer can select a QME
from a list of state-certified doctors specializing in specific medical conditions, such as
orthopedics, cardiology, podiatry, etc. If an employee is represented by an attorney (the
majority of public safety officers in this report had decided to be represented), their attorney
can work with a City’s attorney to select an Agreed Medical Examiner. On several occasions, the
City has not certified an industrial disability retirement due to inadequate medical
documentation.
As indicated in the Grand Jury report, IDR is available for Public Safety officers, which include
firefighters, whose job-related injuries or presumptive illnesses result in their inability to
perform the usual and customary duties of their job. This outcome can be the end result of a
workers’ compensation claim in cases where the claimant does not recover sufficiently to
return to full duty. One of the first steps in the City’s workers’ compensation process is to
ensure that injuries and illness are work-related. Public Safety supervisors complete a report
identifying witnesses, and interviewing witnesses, if needed, about how the injury or illness
occurred. If there is any question that an injury did not occur on the job (for example if a claim
is filed late), the City’s workers’ compensation administrator will question an employee and
may send an investigator to interview witnesses. If there is a question whether an employee is
able to perform more activities than they are stating to a treating doctor during the life of a
workers’ compensation claim, the City’s workers’ compensation administrator may hire an
investigator to conduct surveillance. Also key is to evaluate what preventive action can be
completed to prevent reoccurrence.
Attachment B. City of Palo Alto Response to Grand Jury Report
4 9/11/2013
Recommendation 3b
RESPONSE:
The City of Palo Alto should implement a plan to lower its IDR rate.
The City agrees with this recommendation 3b. The City will continue its efforts to reduce the
rate of disability retirements through proactive measures to prevent occurrence of injuries.
Most importantly, the Public Safety Department is reviewing its injury and illness prevention
program. The City’s response to the Grand Jury described various activities such as
comprehensive training that are strong tools for improving safety that have led to a decrease in
claims over the last ten years. In support of complying with CalOSHA’s general orders for an
effective injury and illness prevention program, the Fire Department conducts monthly safety
committee meetings in which all injury claims, vehicle accidents and near-miss incidents are
reviewed in order to review and suggest worksite or equipment improvement to prevent
reoccurrence.
Examples of improvements which have resulted from this committee are the purchase of
alternate gurneys that are lighter and easier to maneuver, and, a safety video produced to train
firefighters on how to safely exit fire engines without causing knee injuries. The video was
developed after staff analyzed a trend that was occurring involving knees when firefighters
stepped on and off engines.
Public Safety also conducts a wellness program that allows officers to work out on a daily,
limited basis to maintain the physical fitness required by their jobs. In addition, Police and Fire
conduct physical exams that have been successful in proactively identifying medical conditions.
These exams include blood pressure and lipid profile tests, and treadmill fitness exercise. The
Fire Department plans to explore the implementation of the International Association of Fire
Chiefs and the International Foundation of Firefighters Fitness Initiative Program to increase the
participation in fitness training by all firefighters.
One option that the City will evaluate and consider is to establish a review committee including
a physician to review IDR applications and supporting medical reports. A second option that will
be explored with the City Attorney’s office is the criteria a City can use to deny an industrial
disability retirement and still be in compliance with state law.
Finally, legislative changes would be helpful to eliminate the incentive against returning to work
that is created under state law that provides for 50% of the disability retirement benefit tax-
free. According to the Rand report, public safety retirees are considerably more likely to have
made a workers’ compensation claim prior to retirement. This finding is based on data from
individuals making a workers’ compensation claim for a lost-time injury between 1991 and
1996 and looked at CalPERS retirement data as well. Their findings reflected that public safety
officers might be more susceptible to work limitations because of the physically demanding
nature of their work; that public safety employees claim a work-related disability at a higher
Attachment B. City of Palo Alto Response to Grand Jury Report
5 9/11/2013
rate than employees in non-safety occupations, and that this is more pronounced at older ages.
In addition, an increase in disability benefits could be an incentive for not returning to work.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to this 2012-13 Civil Grand Jury report and develop
strategies to further decrease the City of Palo Alto Industrial Disability Retirement rates.
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
Exhibit 1. City Response to Grand Jury Request for Information
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
Police - Total Number of Claims
Fiscal Year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
Fire - Total Number of Claims
Fiscal Year