by Gina Holland, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to consider expanding special death benefits to law officers who commit suicide over job stress.
Justices could have used the case, in a Massachusetts lawman’s death, to put work-related mental injuries in the same category as physical ones like gunshot wounds.
The police officer’s widow argued that without court intervention, the government would continue denying help to deserving families. The challenge, involving a fund Congress set up to help officer survivors, would have affected few people.
Justices declined without comment to review it.
Pamela Yanco’s attorney said that the issue was especially important now.
“It is vital to all Americans at this time that the focus and commitment of the nation’s public safety officers not be at risk from even a limited erosion of confidence in such a critical remedial program,” Jeffrey L. Allen wrote in court filings.
Yanco’s 43-year-old husband, William, shot himself in 1992 after being falsely accused of kissing a boy he counseled as part of his job as a youth safety officer in the wealthy Boston suburb of Wellesley.
Three investigations cleared the 21-year police veteran of any wrongdoing, but he said in a note left behind to one of his two young sons that, “No matter what I say, people will always be suspicious.”
He killed himself while talking on the telephone to his supervisor, and at his funeral a police lieutenant said, “If a person could give too much or care too much, that person was Bill. Bill died in the line of duty as a police officer.”
The city retirement board determined that Yanco died in the line of work and that his widow was entitled to pension benefits. A psychologist and psychiatrist said his suicide was related to the job
But Mrs. Yanco was turned down when she sought help from the Justice Department, which oversees death benefits under a law passed in 1976. Survivors can receive a one-time payment of more than $100,000.
The law did not specify what types of death result in payments, so the Justice Department spelled out such things as injuries from bullets, explosives, sharp instruments, blunt objects, chemicals, radiation, bacteria, and climatic conditions.
Mrs. Yanco maintains that mental injuries like post-traumatic stress disorder and depression should be added.
Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, representing the Bush administration, said that when Congress passed the law, records of the discussions “emphasize the physical risks posed to public safety officers, but do not mention mental dangers.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the Justice Department’s interpretation of the law last year.
Allen told justices in filings that the terrorist attacks prove that the list is incomplete.
“If an officer had an allergic reaction to airborne particles inhaled from the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, can his family have certainty that the (government) would consider the officer to have sustained an injury involving physical assault or trauma to the body?” he asked.
The case is Yanco v. United States, 01-674.