WASHINGTON 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.
