Gary Veeder had the kind of job TV viewers love: for 31 years he was a scientist in the New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center. He specialized in trace evidence, examining fibers, arson residue, footwear impressions, glass, hair and other evidence gathered in criminal investigations. His findings carried significant weight in criminal trials. People went to jail based upon his evidence. Alas, a state investigation found significant problems in 29 percent of Veeder’s 322 cases. That’s a lot of problems – and a lot of jail time – for people who may or may not have committed crimes.
As the investigation into his work unfolded, Veeder first retired and then committed suicide by hanging himself in his garage. Given that the stress leading to the suicide was predominantly caused by work, his widow filed for workers comp benefits. The claim was denied, on the basis that the stress was the result of personnel actions, which are excluded from comp eligibility.
The case wended its way to the Appelate Division of the NY Supreme Court, where the decision to deny benefits was reversed and the case sent back to the workers comp board for reconsideration.
Nothing Personnel
The reversal was based upon a simple, rather stark conclusion: at the time of Veeder’s suicide, no personnel actions had been implemented. The state was investigating the situation; they had uncovered problems in Veeder’s work, but they were on a narrowly defined “fact finding” mission. No action had been taken against Veeder: he was not suspended or demoted or disciplined in any manner. Thus the stress was purely the result of the investigation, not of any personnel action.
In other words, had the employer simply announced to Veeder that the investigation was the initial phase of a disciplinary process, he would probably not have been eligible for workers comp. The only facts that count: he was under enormous work-related stress (of his own making) and he killed himself as a direct result of the work-related situation. And because comp is no fault, it appears that Veeder’s widow will be eligible for burial and indemnity benefits.
Is this fair? Is this just? Maybe yes, maybe no, but these questions themselves are not relevant in the determination of compensability. The claim may still be denied, but some other basis of denial must be found.
Hard Time
Veeder did his job poorly, but he was never held accountable by his superiors. A case can be made that Veeder’s widow is an innocent party, that she is entitled to benefits for her husband’s “work-related” death – despite the fact that virtually all of the stress was of Veeder’s own doing. Meanwhile, quite a few people convicted on corrupted evidence are serving hard time. Some were probably guilty, others completely innocent. But in cases where the lynchpin of conviction was Veeder’s incompetent work, all deserve to go free. This is unlikely to happen. Is this fair? Is this just? Nothing “maybe” about it. Justice – to this point, at least – has certainly not been served.
Tags: case law, investigations, New York, suicide
