Provides for payment of salary and medical expenses for police officers exposed to HIV in the course of their duties; provides for HIV testing of the exposing person

In addition, solely for the purposes of subdivision 7, police officers and district attorney's investigators in a city of over 1,000,000 are included within the definition of "policeman."

Paragraph (b) establishes a presumption that the exposure of a police officer to a significant risk of HIV infection in the performance of official duties will be presumptive evidence that any HIV related illness contracted by such officer was incurred in the performance and discharge of duty, unless the contrary is proved by competent evidence.

Paragraph (c) provides that any such police officer will be continued by the municipal employer at full salary and benefits for any period of disability arising from an HIV related illness, and will also be reimbursed for all necessary medical treatment and hospital care.

Paragraph (d) establishes procedures for a police officer or a municipal employer to request a determination from the appropriate state or local health officer on whether the circumstances of an exposure to the blood or body fluids of another person indicates a significant risk of HIV transmission, in accordance with regulations recently adopted by the Commissioner of Health. If indicated, the health officer is authorized to determine whether the blood or body fluids contain evidence of HIV infection.

The preferred approach to making this determination is to seek the consent of the individual to whose blood or body fluids the police officer has been exposed - however, if such individual refuses to consent to testing, the public health officer is empowered to order such individual to submit to HIV testing. Under current law, failure to comply with a lawful order of a public health officer is a misdemeanor.

Paragraph (e) provides for disclosure of any information on an individual's HIV status by the public health officer only to the extent necessary to fulfill the purposes of subdivision 7, and also provides that any such disclosures shall be governed by all of the provisions of Article 27-F of the Public Health Law, which ensures the confidentiality of such information.

A new section 169-a is added to the executive law to extend the above provisions to any police officer or peace officer employed by the state.

Effects on present law

Currently, although a police officer is generally entitled to medical benefits for injuries and illnesses incurred in the performance of official duties, there is no statutory procedure for determining whether an HIV related illness might have resulted from the performance of such duties. This bill would establish such a procedure and thereby clarify the law in this area.

Justification

Under current law, there is no procedure to determine if a police officer who has had a significant exposure to HIV -infected blood or body fluids in performing official duties, and who subsequently contracts an HIV related illness, has incurred such illness in the performance of official duties and is therefore eligible to the benefits already provided for under section 207-c.

In addition, new state laws on AIDS/HIV confidentiality have created a situation where a police officer who is exposed to the blood or body fluids of another, in a manner which suggests a significant risk of HIV transmission, e.g., a needle stick, is unable to find out whether he or she was exposed, contains evidence of HIV infection.

For example, earlier this year a transit police officer in New York City was struck with a hypodermic needle while examining the jacket of a suspect he was arresting. Despite the risk of contracting an HIV infection under such circumstances, the officer was unable to get information on the HIV status of the suspect, even through a court order. In the end, the suspect would agree to submit to a blood test only in return for a favorable plea bargaining deal. This case was decried by many observers, including civil libertarians, who felt that state policies in favor of confidentiality of HIV information were being abused. This bill would prevent this recurrence of this problem.

Fiscal implication

To the extent that police officers which contract HIV infection in the performance of their official duties are currently being denied medical benefits by a municipal employer, this bill would require additional expenditures by such employers or their health insurance plans, which mayor may not entail an increase in the premiums paid by such employers. It might also entail minor increases in the budgets of the State Health Department and local health departments to carry out their responsibilities under the bill.

Legislative history

1991-08 Referred to Committee on Local Government

Effective date

This bill shall take effect the sixtieth day after becoming law.