How Long After An Incident Of This Type Is It An LODD?

[Guest]

In Jerusalem Twp (Curtice, Ohio, Toledo area) Firefighter Daniel Wilson 58 years old (a 32 year veteran) had responded to the firehouse on the 19th of Oct. at approximately 1515 Hours for an EMS run. It was noted that he didn't feel well after the run. On the 20th of Oct. at approximately 1000 hours he requested as was transported by Life Squad to a Toledo hospital from a business where he called for the squad. Firefighter Wilson was taken to surgery for a severe heart attack, after which he never recovered and passed away at the hospital Saturday Oct. 23rd. As always, our most sincere condolences.HERE is the FD Website: http://www.twp.jerusalem.oh.us/Departments/FireDepartment/tabid/57/Default.aspx RELATED: Sudden/Cardiac Arrest Biggest Risk For Firefighters:http://tinyurl.com/272z8yv ...

View the full article at FirefighterCloseCalls.com

[INIT915 1,119]

This article brings up an interesting question. How long after an incident can we still consider a death in the LODD?

[Guest Firediver]

This article brings up an interesting question. How long after an incident can we still consider a death in the LODD?

Not certain but I do recall reading about a LODD (yrs ago)where a member went home and later that day had a heart attack that was attributed to the job they had that early morning.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Firediver

[x635 4,066]

If a firefighter or police officer is injured at the scene or in the course of their duties whatever and wherever they may be, and then they die a few days later (or even years from directly attributable to that injury), then it's an LODD, IMHO.

Due to the nature of being a firefighter, I'd say a cardiac related death like his if he was pronounced fit for the duties they do and healthy with a recent physical an LODD. This is why EVERY firefighter, especially after 40-50, should have a cardiac stress test and full workup annually in addition to a physical. It may not prevent it, but it may detect something that could potentially save someones life.

If this is officially listed as an LODD, then we are inflating our LODD statistics. It's a fine line, I guess.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

According to the USFA so long as the firefighter received his injuries during active duty or as defined by the Hometown Heros Act it is a LODD, even more than a decade after. I remember middle of last year of the LODDs was a for a firefighter who died something like 13 years after receiving an injury on the job.

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/fatalities/

[FireMedic049 597]

This article brings up an interesting question. How long after an incident can we still consider a death in the LODD?

According to the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act of 2003:

"The law presumes that a heart attack or stroke are in the line of duty if the firefighter was engaged in nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity while on duty and the firefighter becomes ill while on duty or within 24 hours after engaging in such activity."

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/fatalities/statistics/index.shtm

[FireMedic049 597]

If this is officially listed as an LODD, then we are inflating our LODD statistics. It's a fine line, I guess.

Not necessarily.

Too an extent, I agree with the premise that this type of situation is "inflating" what we traditionally have viewed as a LODD. However, it's also possible that maybe we weren't including some deaths in the past that should have been considered LODDs because we didn't know then what we know now?

It's kind of like the belief that the fire service isn't making much progress regarding LODDs because the annual rate continues to be around 100 per year. However, if you look at the details of the LODD stats, then you'll see that less firefighters appear to be dying as the result of "fire events". The annual number isn't improving much because the "rules" have changed and has thus skewed the stats when comparing the past few years with 10-15+ years ago.

I believe if you were able to accurately apply the current LODD standards to prior recent decades, then you'd see higher LODD totals for those years and conversely, if the rules hadn't changed then the recent years would have had lower LODD totals.

Now I don't have an issue with having an "easier" LODD standard since it is clearly to the benefit of the survivors in terms of "death benefits" that are available to them. I just wish we could more clearly distinguish between being "killed in the line of duty" and "dying while on duty or following duty" since many of the latter may be more attributable to underlying medical problems and just "happened" to occur while on duty.

[INIT915 1,119]

According to the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act of 2003:

"The law presumes that a heart attack or stroke are in the line of duty if the firefighter was engaged in nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity while on duty and the firefighter becomes ill while on duty or within 24 hours after engaging in such activity."

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/fatalities/statistics/index.shtm

Thanks. This was the answer I was looking for. I wasn't sure if there were criteria, or if the decision was being made on a case-by-case basis.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

In Connecticut, employees are covered "from portal to portal." So if you are on your way, or returning from work, you are also covered. This is in addition to the rules previously mentioned under heart and hypertension.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Unfortunately, a Lieutenant from Waterbury Fire in CT passed away today after a massive heart attack after coming off duty. I'll try to post the details tomorrow.

[RescueKujo 130]

According to the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act of 2003:

"The law presumes that a heart attack or stroke are in the line of duty if the firefighter was engaged in nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity while on duty and the firefighter becomes ill while on duty or within 24 hours after engaging in such activity."

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/fatalities/statistics/index.shtm

Depending on the State, many disease processes are automatically considered as "job related" due to the nature of a firefighter's job. Cardiac, Lung, Stroke and Cancer are the big 4 that are usually covered due to the exposure one receives due to the job. We just had a firefighter from a local department here pass from Melanoma and it was considered Line of Duty.

[rutola413 5]

Not certain but I do recall reading about a LODD (yrs ago)where a member went home and later that day had a heart attack that was attributed to the job they had that early morning.

This happened up here in July. We had a structure fire, the firefighter (from a neighboring town) went home, and layed in bed 5 hours after all departments cleared. He suffered a heart attack and passed. RIP Firefighter Dave Sullivan, Otis MA FD

[helicopper 1,050]

Depending on the State, many disease processes are automatically considered as "job related" due to the nature of a firefighter's job. Cardiac, Lung, Stroke and Cancer are the big 4 that are usually covered due to the exposure one receives due to the job. We just had a firefighter from a local department here pass from Melanoma and it was considered Line of Duty.

Add Hepatitis to the list. We had an officer contract Hep-C and succumb many years later and it was deemed a line of duty death.

Personally, and this is not intended to diminish the sacrifices made by those who die as a result of an illness contracted on the job, I would like to see a distinction between line of duty deaths and occupational deaths. Someone contracting a job-related illness is an occupational hazard but is different than being killed in the line of duty (during a fire, killed by a suspect, etc.). I'm not saying that occupational deaths shouldn't receive benefits but I think the sacrifice is different and we should keep "line of duty deaths" on-duty and directly due to the performance of their duties.

That's just me though...

[Bnechis 3,961]

Personally, and this is not intended to diminish the sacrifices made by those who die as a result of an illness contracted on the job, I would like to see a distinction between line of duty deaths and occupational deaths. Someone contracting a job-related illness is an occupational hazard but is different than being killed in the line of duty (during a fire, killed by a suspect, etc.). I'm not saying that occupational deaths shouldn't receive benefits but I think the sacrifice is different and we should keep "line of duty deaths" on-duty and directly due to the performance of their duties.

Very interesting. In some ways I agree with seperating occupational from line of duty, particularly if the benefits remain the same. In other ways I'm not so sure.

Should those responders who got sick working the pile at ground zero be considered as "occupational" since they came down with many issues that are not "normal" occupational illnesses?

I do believe that their is a major difference between a member who dies while searching in a fire building or running into a active shooter scene or putting themself truly in harms way is a LODD, I have trouble considering the 75y/o responder who dies from a cardiac event while ouside the hot zone is clearly not the same and when some say it is, they are marginalizing the 1st groups sacrifice.

[ny10570 745]

FDNY we have 24 hours after our last shift to have the MI or CVA and we're covered. Infectious disease is a whole different animal and luckily largely untested depending on confirmed or suspected exposure and high risk vs low risk exposure.