By Kim Ring
Telegram and Gazette
RUTLAND, Mass. — A dispute between an injured firefighter and the town — and the selectmen’s attempt to shift the cost of paying his salary to workers’ compensation insurance — could have statewide implications for firefighters injured on the job.
Rutland Firefighter Paul Newcomb of Hubbardston was hurt Feb. 2, 2010. He said he was working on the ambulance, lifting a patient, when a disc in his back ruptured. He has been out of work ever since, collecting his full salary of $50,821, but selectmen want to change that.
The board is seeking to shift the cost of paying Firefighter Newcomb’s salary from the town funds onto workers’ compensation insurance. If the town is successful, Firefighter Newcomb estimates he would lose 40 percent of his salary. Because he would eventually retire on disability, only the sum he is paid during the interim would be affected.
In Rutland, and in many other cities and towns, firefighters are required to work as paramedics or emergency medical technicians. There is no separation in their job titles or pay.
But the town, saying that Firefighter Newcomb was injured as a paramedic, and not a firefighter, is using the distinction in an attempt to shift the cost of paying his salary to workers’ compensation.
“Of course, I’m looking out for myself and my family first,” Firefighter Newcomb said. “But I also have to think about all the other firefighters who could be affected by this.”
In August, doctors installed titanium rods in his back, removed the disc, attached him to an electronic device to help stimulate the damaged nerves in his leg and told him his firefighting career was over.
The 43-year-old said he was devastated, but eventually came to terms with the fact that he could no longer perform the job. He submitted his retirement papers. But until they’re approved, he remains out of work, collecting his full salary as career firefighters do under state law.The chairman of the Rutland Board of Selectmen, Sheila Dibb, said her board cannot comment on Firefighter Newcomb’s case, because the matter went into executive session.
“We initially thought that there might be a possibility that it would stay (in) open (session), but Paul elected to go into executive session,” she said of Tuesday’s meeting. “We’re hoping to have a quick resolution.”
The law seems to indicates that police officers and firefighters injured in the course of their duties must be paid their regular salary, Firefighter Newcomb said. It does not include the specific words “EMT” or “Paramedic,” but because so many firefighters are now required to work on town-run ambulances during the course of the fire department shifts, firefighters argue that it should apply.
It’s not the first time the law has been tested, Charlton Assistant Chief Michael L. Mahan said.
“That happened here about 15 years ago,” he said.
And a legal opinion provided to Charlton back then indicated that if the job title is firefighter-paramedic, the employee is a firefighter covered under the law, he explained. Paramedic-firefighters may not be.
Fire Chief Thomas P. Ruchala said he hires “firefighter-EMTs” and “firefighter-paramedics” because there is no full-time job for a person who’s simply a firefighter. He said full-time department members receive one paycheck, no matter what duties they perform while at work.
In their executive session meeting Tuesday, selectmen met with Firefighter Newcomb and Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts District Vice President Daniel F. Hartwell and Chief Ruchala. They emerged an hour later and Firefighter Newcomb and Mr. Hartwell said the session was “productive” though the issue had not been resolved, and both sides would do more research.
The situation brought angry words from the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts interim president Edward Kelly, who said the law was never intended to be read the way Rutland officials are reading it.
“They are maliciously interpreting the intent of the law which protects police and firefighters who are injured in the line of duty,” he said. “And to victimize this firefighter and his family is an insult to the firefighters of Rutland and the people of the town.”
As the meeting went on that night, about 30 firefighters from Worcester, Shrewsbury, Holden and Rutland gathered at the fire station to show support for Firefighter Newcomb. Some said they’re concerned about what could happen to them if the law can be interpreted to mean they are not covered while working on the ambulance or even while they’re providing assistance to EMTs while responding with their fire equipment.
Ms. Dibb said a tentative meeting, whether or not there is a need for it, is slated for March 7.
Copyright 2011 Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Inc.
All Rights Reserved