U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

The Office of Justice Programs’ 

Implementation of the Hometown Heroes 

Survivors Benefits Act of 2003 

March 2008 

I-2008-005
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 i

EXECUTIVE DIGEST 

INTRODUCTION 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review to 

examine how the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has implemented the 

Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003 (Hometown Heroes Act) 

and how it processed claims submitted under the Act. The Act 

established death benefits for public safety officers, such as police 

officers and firefighters, who die of heart attacks or strokes in the line of 

duty or within 24 hours of a triggering event while on duty.1 We 

assessed the timeliness of OJP’s processing of claims filed under the Act, 

OJP’s determination of whether or not to award benefits, and the 

reasoning behind these determinations. We conducted the review in 

response to concerns expressed by several members of Congress that 

OJP was taking too long to process claims submitted under the Act and 

that OJP’s narrow interpretation of terms found in the Act – in particular 

the phrases “nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity” and 

“competent medical evidence to the contrary” – might be resulting in a 

high rate of claims denials. 

The Hometown Heroes Act includes a statutory presumption that 

public safety officers who die from a heart attack or stroke following a 

“nonroutine stressful or strenuous” physical public safety activity or 

training exercise died in the line of duty. However, under the Act the 

statutory presumption that heart attacks or strokes following stressful or 

strenuous physical activity are line-of-duty-related deaths can be 

overcome with “competent medical evidence to the contrary.” This 

means that an officer’s pre-existing medical conditions that contribute to 

a heart attack or stroke may render the claim for benefits not 

compensable. 

Hometown Heroes Act claims are processed through OJP’s Bureau 

of Justice Assistance (BJA), which administers the Public Safety Officers’ 

Benefits (PSOB) Program. The PSOB Office reviews the documentary 

 1 Enacted on December 15, 2003, the Hometown Heroes Act amended the 

Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1976, which had established a program to provide 

death and education benefits to spouses and children of public safety officers who die in 

the line of duty. Through an amendment in 1990, Congress also provided disability 

benefits to officers permanently and totally disabled by an injury incurred in the line of 

duty. See 42 U.S.C. § 3796. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 ii

evidence submitted by Hometown Heroes Act claimants and public safety 

agencies, contacts the claimants and agencies for additional 

documentation and information, and writes initial determinations to 

approve or deny claims.2 OJP’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is 

responsible for conducting a second review of Hometown Heroes Act 

claims and providing assessments of any legal issues. Both offices must 

concur in their evaluation of a claim before a final approval or denial can 

be issued to the claimant. From December 2003 through the end of 

November 2007, OJP received 291 Hometown Heroes Act claims and 

issued 112 determinations – 65 denials and 47 approvals, with 

$12,889,452 paid to claimants.3 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

As of November 29, 2007, OJP had completed only half of the 

Hometown Heroes Act claims it received in the first 3 years after passage 

of the Act. Some of the claims that remained pending as of November 

2007 had been filed as long ago as 2004. One of the reasons for the 

delay in processing claims was the fact that OJP took 33 months to issue 

final regulations implementing the Act, during which time OJP developed 

a backlog of 201 claims. However, even after OJP issued the necessary 

regulations in September 2006, it processed claims slowly. Processing 

was slow because most claims had been submitted without required 

documentation, OGC’s legal reviews of claims were time consuming, and 

decisions on some claims were delayed because OJP could not obtain 

needed pathology reviews. 

In the fall of 2007, OJP implemented several initiatives designed to 

expedite its processing of claims and by the end of our review had 

reduced the backlog of 201 claims to 99, for a total of 179 claims 

pending determination. 

 2 Because the PSOB Program is a claims program, individuals must meet 

eligibility and evidentiary requirements to receive benefits. A claimant and the public 

safety agency involved in a claim are responsible for providing OJP with documentary 

evidence that demonstrates the claim meets the program’s criteria and is compensable. 

OJP uses the term “determination” to mean the written decision that outlines the facts 

of the public safety officer’s activities and death, a statement of whether the claim is 

approved or denied, and the reasoning for the decision. 

3 The amount of the one-time death benefit, currently $303,064, is determined 

by the date of the public safety officer’s death. All approved claims are awarded the 

entire amount of the benefit. Since October 15, 1988, the benefit has been adjusted 

each year on October 1 to reflect the percentage of change in the Consumer Price Index. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 iii

We also found that OJP initially denied many claims because, 

according to OJP, evidence provided by the claimants did not prove that 

the decedents’ activities, such as installing smoke detectors or manning 

a station house, were “stressful” or “strenuous” as required by the Act. 

Some denials were based in part on OJP’s narrow legal interpretation of 

the definition of “nonroutine” activities. In October 2007, the BJA issued 

policy memoranda clarifying that any response to an emergency call 

should be considered “nonroutine” for purposes of analyzing claims 

under the Act. The Director of the PSOB Program Office stated that this 

step has since led to more claims being approved and faster claims 

processing. 

The following sections of this Executive Summary describe in more 

detail the OIG’s findings. 

Timeliness of Claims Processing 

OJP took a long time – from December 2003 to September 2006 – 

to update the PSOB Program regulations to implement the Hometown 

Heroes Act. During that time, OJP developed a backlog of 201 

Hometown Heroes Act claims. 

According to OJP, several factors affected its ability to update the 

program regulations, including the time it took to consult with public 

safety organizations and medical experts and the time required for 

Department of Justice and Office of Management and Budget reviews of 

the proposed regulations. OJP said it had to incorporate not only the 

Hometown Heroes Act into the PSOB Program regulations, but 18 other 

congressional amendments to the program and numerous court 

decisions made in the 30-year period since the original regulations were 

issued. During this almost 3-year period, no claims were processed 

because OJP could not make claim determinations until the final PSOB 

Program regulations were issued. 

The final PSOB Program regulations became effective on 

September 11, 2006. As of that time, 201 claims were pending. 

However, we found that OJP’s processing of claims was slow even after 

the regulations were in place. As of November 29, 2007, 179 Hometown 

Heroes Act claims were pending OJP’s final determination, including 16 

claims that had been pending for over 3 years. While the PSOB Office 

had taken some steps to prepare claims for processing during the time 

the regulations were being developed, these initial steps did not enable 

OJP to make timely determinations after the regulations were in place. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 iv

We examined how long it took OJP to process Hometown Heroes 

Act claims after regulations were issued and found that the processing 

times for the 112 claims completed by OJP ranged from 2 to 12 months, 

with a median processing time of 10 months. Overall, the 112 completed 

claims represented 38 percent of the 291 claims OJP received from 

passage of the Act in December 2003 through November 2007. 

We found that three factors contributed to the length of time 

required to process claims after the regulations were issued. First, 

almost all of the claims were submitted without all required information 

and documentation. According to the PSOB Office staff, claimants often 

have difficulty preparing complete claims because of insufficient 

guidance, the time and expense of acquiring documentation, and in some 

cases limited assistance from the public safety agencies involved in the 

claims. As a result, the PSOB Office officials said they had to request 

additional information from claimants and agencies, which often added 

months to the process. 

Second, the reviews of claims by OJP’s OGC have been lengthy. 

We reviewed Hometown Heroes Act claims and the database that records 

activity on claims and estimated that OGC reviews took a median of 50 

days, with some reviews taking more than 180 days. The length of the 

review was extended because of certain inefficient internal practices by 

the OGC, such as allocating PSOB claims across numerous attorneys 

and sometimes requesting additional documentation and evidence that 

was not necessary for making a determination on whether a claim was 

compensable. Additionally, because OGC has no formal method of 

recording information requests in the case files, the PSOB Office received 

duplicative information requests from OGC attorneys. Further, OGC 

attorneys made numerous inconsistent edits to the draft determinations, 

adding time to the claims review process. Finally, we noted that OGC 

had no established timeliness standards for conducting its reviews of the 

claims. 

Third, some Hometown Heroes Act claim determinations were 

delayed pending the independent medical pathology review required for 

claims that OJP determined had met all other PSOB Program 

requirements. Initially, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) 

provided these reviews, but in May 2007 the AFIP informed OJP that it 

could not continue doing so because the war in Iraq increased its 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 v

workload from the military services.4 Consequently, processing for some 

claims was delayed until OJP identified a new pathology contractor. 

OJP Initiatives to Improve the Claims Review Process 

Toward the end of our review, the BJA and OJP’s OGC 

implemented several initiatives to address some of the deficiencies that 

have contributed to the lengthy claims review process. These initiatives 

included providing additional guidance to claimants and changing 

internal procedures to speed the claims review process. During fiscal 

year (FY) 2007, OJP’s first year of processing claims after the final 

regulations were issued, OJP issued 72 determinations. In contrast, 

during the first 2 months of FY 2008, OJP issued 40 determinations. 

The increased number of determinations issued suggests that some of 

the new policies and procedures have improved claims processing.5 

These initiatives are discussed below. 

Better Guidance for Claimants and Agencies 

The BJA, with input from public safety officer associations, is 

developing a manual about the Hometown Heroes Act for claimants and 

public safety agencies (“The Attorney General’s Guide to the Hometown 

Heroes Act”). According to the PSOB Director, the manual will 

consolidate all claim application instructions in a single document that 

contains detailed information on the Hometown Heroes Act and the 

criteria used to evaluate claims. Additionally, the manual will translate 

the legal language of the statute and program regulations into more 

understandable terms. 

 4 The AFIP is an agency of the Department of Defense that provides pathology 

services to the federal government and pathology consultation, education, and research. 

The AFIP has a workforce of over 820 personnel, including over 120 pathologists and 

other scientists. 

5 We could not fully determine the initiatives’ effects on the process because 

they were implemented near the conclusion of our field work. However, OJP provided 

the OIG with an update to the numbers of Hometown Heroes Act claims processed and 

pending in an e-mail in March 2008. As of March 26, 2008, OJP had received a total of 

303 claims, of which 213 had been decided, 1 had been withdrawn by the claimant, and 

89 were pending a determination. OJP had approved 122 claims and denied 91 claims, 

8 of which were overturned on appeal to approvals. The backlog of claims OJP 

developed during the time the program regulations were developed was reduced from 

201 to 27. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 vi

Local Assistance State Teams 

In 2006, the BJA began awarding grants to firefighter and police 

associations to develop the Local Assistance State Teams. The teams are 

deployed when a firefighter or police officer dies in the line of duty to aid 

the decedent’s family, the public safety agency, and colleagues with 

assistance with funeral arrangements, counseling, and submitting PSOB 

claims. 

New Approach to Required Documentation 

In October 2007, the BJA stopped requesting 10 years of medical 

records from Hometown Heroes Act claimants unless evidence in a case 

file suggests something other than a line-of-duty activity caused the 

decedent’s heart attack or stroke. This change will reduce the time spent 

requesting and waiting for records. Also, OJP no longer requests 

documentation on death benefits from claimants in states and localities 

that do not offer death benefits for heart attacks and strokes. 

“12-a-Week” Initiative 

The PSOB Director started a “12-a-week” initiative in August 2007 

to work through the pending Hometown Heroes Act claims and to 

accelerate the claims process overall. Under the initiative, the PSOB 

Office staff and the Director meet weekly to determine whether case files 

for the 12 oldest Hometown Heroes Act claims include all the 

documentation necessary to make a decision and then forward those 

claims to OJP OGC for a legal review. According to the PSOB Director, 

processing is not delayed if a case file lacks documents or information 

that is not material to the approval or denial of a claim. 

Outreach Administrative Contractor 

In September 2007, the PSOB Director hired an Outreach 

Administrative Contractor to handle some of the most time-consuming 

tasks associated with PSOB claims processing, such as contacting 

claimants and public safety agencies for additional information and 

documents. According to the PSOB Director, the contractor’s 

performance of the outreach tasks should allow the PSOB Office staff to 

concentrate on analyzing case file evidence and rendering 

determinations. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 vii

PSOB Case Management System 

In October 2007, the PSOB Office began the first phase of 

implementing a new case management system. The PSOB Office’s 

previous database did not allow for detailed searches of case file 

information, reminders for follow-up actions, or a direct link to scanned 

documents that accompany claims. Unlike the old database, the new 

system allows OGC attorneys reviewing PSOB claims access to view 

entire case files in the system and to add their review notes for the PSOB 

Office staff. 

OJP’s Decisions on Hometown Heroes Act Claims 

As of November 29, 2007, OJP had approved 47 claims for benefits 

and denied 65 of the 112 claim reviews that it had completed.6 In 10 of 

the 65 denied claims, OJP determined that the application did not 

contain the evidence to show that the claim met basic eligibility criteria 

established in the PSOB Act or the Hometown Heroes Act (such as that 

the decedent be a public safety officer, be on duty in the 24 hours prior 

to death, or have performed line-of-duty activities). Therefore, OJP did 

not further evaluate the 10 claims for evidence of “nonroutine stressful or 

strenuous” physical activity or “competent medical evidence to the 

contrary.” 

In assessing the 55 other denied claims, OJP reviewed the claims 

against the Act’s requirement that the fatal heart attack or stroke 

followed “nonroutine stressful or strenuous” physical public safety 

activities or training exercises. In our review of these claim 

determinations, we observed that OJP focused more on the stressful and 

strenuous nature of the physical activities or training exercises in which 

decedents had engaged and less on how frequently or routinely the 

activities were conducted.7 

 6 Claimants may appeal denied claims through a three-tiered process: OJP 

Hearing Officers, the BJA Director, and the federal courts. During the appeals process, 

claimants may present additional documentation and have witnesses testify on their 

behalf. See Appendix III for a description of the appeals process. 

 

7 To be considered “stressful” the physical activity must pose or appear to pose 

“significant threats or hazards” or involve “reasonably foreseeable risks of such threats 

or hazards” and provoke or cause “an unusually-high level of alarm, fear, or anxiety.” 

To be considered “strenuous,” the activity must “entail a high level of physical exertion.” 

See 42 U.S.C. § 3796 (2006). 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 viii

OJP concluded that these 55 claims were non-compensable 

because the evidence did not show that the public safety officers engaged 

in “stressful or strenuous physical activity or training.” None of the 55 

denied Hometown Heroes Act claims cited “medical evidence to the 

contrary” as a basis for denial. However, our review concluded that OJP 

narrowly interpreted the Act for at least 19 of the claims denied during 

its first year of claims processing. Specifically, OJP denied 19 claims in 

which officers had responded to emergency calls based partly on a 

criterion that was later changed by a policy memorandum issued in 

October 2007. After October 2, 2007, OJP changed its policy to consider 

any response to an emergency call to be “nonroutine.” The PSOB 

Director attributed the subsequent approval of some claims to the policy 

change. 

The reasons for the 65 denials, taken from information in the claim 

determinations, are summarized below. 

OJP’s Reasons for Denying Claims

Cases That Did Not Meet the Basic Criteria of the Act 

Of the 65 denials, 10 were cases in which OJP concluded that the 

applications failed to show that the claims met the basic criteria 

established in the PSOB Act or the Hometown Heroes Act. Five of these 

claims failed to show evidence that the decedent was a public safety 

officer, four failed to show evidence that the officer was on duty in the 24 

hours prior to the heart attack or stroke, and one failed to show evidence 

that the death met the requirements for “line of duty.”8

 8 The PSOB Program defines “line of duty” activity as an “activity or an action 

that [the public safety officer] is obligated or authorized by statute, rule, regulation, 

condition of employment or service, official mutual-aid agreement, or other law, to 

perform . . . under the auspices of the public agency he serves, and such agency (or the 

relevant government) legally recognizes that activity or action to be so obligated or 

authorized . . . . [The activity] is performed (as applicable) in the course of law 

enforcement, providing fire protection, engaging in rescue activity, providing emergency 

medical services, or training for one of the foregoing, and such agency (or the relevant 

government) legally recognizes it as such.” See 28 C.F.R. § 32.3 (2006). 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 ix

Cases Involving Officers Who Did Not Respond to a Call 

Another 27 of the 65 denied claims involved officers who were on 

duty but did not respond to a call and did not engage in a qualifying 

activity as required by the Hometown Heroes Act.9 The officers in several 

of these 27 claims had engaged only in administrative activities, such as 

filling out paperwork or attending meetings, or ancillary activities, such 

as routine maintenance on department vehicles, marching in a parade as 

a member of the department, installing smoke detectors for citizens, or 

manning the station house. OJP denied other claims in this category 

because it concluded that the officers’ activities, while not administrative 

or ancillary, nonetheless did not involve “non routine stressful and 

strenuous physical activity” as required by the regulations. Examples of 

activities in these claims include correctional officers who made rounds 

and assisted in food service but did not respond to an emergency and 

officers who conducted regular patrols or routine traffic stops. 

Cases Involving Officers Participating in Training 

Nine of the 65 denied claims involved public safety officers who 

died after training activities that did not meet criteria in the Hometown 

Heroes Act. Some of these officers attended training sessions in a 

classroom that did not involve physical activity or had died while 

engaging in physical fitness training (such as lifting weights or walking 

on a treadmill) that did not simulate an emergency response activity. In 

other cases, OJP denied claims because an officer prepared the training 

or observed participants in a training session but did not engage in any 

training activities. 

Cases Involving Officers Who Responded to a Call: Potentially Narrow 

Interpretation of the Act 

In 19 of the 65 denied claims, OJP concluded that a public safety 

officer had suffered a heart attack or stroke after responding to a call but 

before arriving at the scene, after responding to a call that was a false 

alarm, after responding to a call and not conducting any law enforcement 

or emergency activities at the scene, or after responding to a call and not 

performing any activity that involved great physical exertion at the scene. 

However, OJP evaluated these claims using a narrow interpretation of 

 9 Qualifying activities include law enforcement, fire suppression, rescue activity, 

hazardous material response, emergency medical services, disaster relief activity, or 

other emergency response. See 42 U.S.C. § 3796 (k)(1)(A) (2006). 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 x

the Act. OJP determined that the claims did not have enough evidence 

to show that the officer’s response to the emergency call involved 

“nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity” or that the officers’ 

activities after responding to the call qualified as “law enforcement, fire 

suppression, rescue, hazardous material response, emergency medical 

services, prison security, disaster relief or other emergency response 

activity.”10 Responses to emergency calls were not automatically defined 

as “nonroutine,” and OJP evaluated the evidence in each claim to 

determine if the officers’ emergency response activities met the 

requirements of the Hometown Heroes Act and PSOB Program 

regulations. 

However, in October 2007, the BJA issued a policy memorandum 

that stated that any response to an emergency call should be considered 

“nonroutine” for purposes of analyzing claims eligibility.11 The 

memorandum also stated that claims were to be reviewed based more on 

how stressful or strenuous an activity was and less on the frequency 

with which it was performed. Further, the revised policy stated that no 

activity was to be considered routine based solely on the public safety 

agency’s description of the activity as being “routine” or “ordinary.” The 

PSOB Director told us that the policy was instituted as a result of the 

experience gained after a year of processing Hometown Heroes Act 

claims. These 19 denied claims were decided prior to issuance of the 

October 2007 memorandum. 

 

The PSOB Director told us that she intended to call each claimant 

whose Hometown Heroes Act claim had been denied prior to November 1, 

2007, and whose claim was not already in the appeals process, to inform 

them of the new policy. In addition, OJP said it will waive its standard 

deadline for filing appeals to accommodate these claimants if they choose 

to appeal the initial decision. 

According to the PSOB Director, the change in policy defining a 

response to an emergency call as “nonroutine” has resulted in more 

approved claims. Prior to the October 2007 policy clarification, OJP 

denied 58 of 72 claims and approved only 14; during the first 2 months 

 10 42 U.S.C. § 3796 (2006). 

11 OJP OGC considers this policy direction a “rebuttable presumption.” 

Domingo Herraiz, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Public Safety Officers’ 

Benefits Program Policy Memorandum, re: “Nonroutine Stressful or Strenuous Physical 

Activity,” October 2, 2007. 

 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 xi

of FY 2008 (after the policy change), OJP issued another 40 

determinations, approving 33 claims and denying only 7.12 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

OJP took 33 months after passage of the Hometown Heroes Act to 

develop implementing regulations and initially was slow in processing 

claims. As a result, OJP had completed only 112 (38 percent) of the 291 

Hometown Heroes Act claims it had received as of November 29, 2007. 

In addition, OJP’s first year of processing claims under the Act 

highlighted several inefficiencies in the review process. These included 

lengthy legal reviews of claims and multiple requests for additional 

documents by OJP OGC, no established timeframes for attorney reviews, 

no formal method of recording attorneys’ requests for information, 

incomplete claims submissions, and delayed pathology reviews that 

prevented timely assessments of claims. 

In the fall of 2007, the BJA implemented new policies and actions 

designed to expedite the claims review process, and early evidence 

suggests that processing times have improved. For example, while OJP 

issued determinations on 72 Hometown Heroes Act claims in all of 

FY 2007, in the first 2 months of FY 2008 it issued determinations on 40 

claims. 

Our review of OJP’s completed claim determinations showed that 

OJP initially denied most claims based on an evaluation of the stressful 

and strenuous nature of the physical activity or training exercise. While 

many of the denials met the intent of the Hometown Heroes Act, in some 

cases OJP used a narrow definition of what qualified as “nonroutine” for 

evaluating and denying the claims. In October 2007, OJP issued a policy 

change that implemented a broader definition that considers all 

emergency calls as “nonroutine.” Since this policy change, more claims 

 12 Our review of the claims determinations indicated that the increase in 

approvals after October 2007 may not be solely attributable to the policy change. Only 

8 of the 33 approved claims (and none of the 7 denied claims) involved officers 

responding to a call that had similar circumstances to the 19 denied claims mentioned 

above. These eight approved claims involved officers who suffered a heart attack or 

stroke before arriving at the scene, after responding to a false alarm, or after arriving on 

the scene and not conducting any activities. The remaining 25 approved claims had 

evidence showing that the public safety officer engaged in law enforcement, fire 

suppression, rescue, hazardous material response, emergency medical services, prison 

security, disaster relief, or other emergency response activities that were considered 

“nonroutine stressful or strenuous” and were not based on the broader application of 

the definition in the October 2007 memorandum. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

 xii

have been approved, and OJP has notified claimants of the changed 

standards to allow them to appeal their denials. 

To further improve management of the Hometown Heroes Act 

claims process, we recommend that the BJA and OJP OGC take the 

following actions: 

 

1. The BJA should finalize and issue the “Attorney General’s Guide 

to the Hometown Heroes Act.” 

2. OJP OGC staff attorneys should be required to use the PSOB 

Office’s new case management system to record their case 

notes, requests for documentation, and other case-related 

communications with the PSOB Office. 

3. OJP OGC should establish definitive performance timelines for 

attorneys’ reviews of PSOB claims to facilitate claims 

processing. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACRONYMS 

BACKGROUND ......................................................................................1 

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY OF THE OIG REVIEW.......13

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW.................................................................15 

OJP’s Processing of Hometown Heroes Act Claims.......................15 

OJP’s Decisions on Claims Processed..........................................29 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................37 

APPENDIX I: The Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act 

 of 2003 .....................................................................39 

APPENDIX II: PSOB Death Claim Forms.........................................41 

APPENDIX III: PSOB Program Appeals Process ...............................45

APPENDIX IV: Demographics From Completed Hometown 

Heroes Act Claims ....................................................46 

APPENDIX V: Staffing of the PSOB Program ..................................48 

APPENDIX VI: Factors That Affected the Update of the PSOB 

 Program Regulations ................................................50 

APPENDIX VII: Public Safety Officers’ Activities as Described 

 in Claim Determinations..........................................52 

APPENDIX VIII: The Office of Justice Programs’ Response ..............65 

APPENDIX IX: OIG’s Analysis of the Office of Justice 

 Programs’ Response ..................................................78 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

ACRONYMS 

AFIP Armed Forces Institute of Pathology 

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance 

EMT Emergency medical technician 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FY Fiscal year 

LAST Local Assistance State Teams 

OGC Office of the General Counsel 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

OJP Office of Justice Programs 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PSOB Public Safety Officers’ Benefits 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

1

BACKGROUND 

The Department of Justice (Department) Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP) administers the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) Program 

through its Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). At the request of several 

members of Congress, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) examined 

the processing of death claims submitted under the PSOB Program for 

officers who died of heart attacks and strokes. Based on complaints 

from claimants, the members of Congress expressed concern to the OIG 

that OJP’s interpretation and application of some program criteria were 

resulting in a high rate of claims denials.13 In addition, the members 

raised concerns that OJP’s processing of claims was not timely. 

Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program 

In 1976, Congress passed the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act 

creating the PSOB Program to provide death and education benefits to 

spouses and children of public safety officers who die in the line of duty. 

In 1990, the PSOB Act was amended to provide disability benefits to 

officers permanently and totally disabled by an injury incurred in the line 

of duty. Public safety officers are defined as: 

• state, local, or federal law enforcement officers; 

• state, local, or federal firefighters; 

• rescue squad and ambulance crew members; 

• chaplains; and 

• employees of the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) and employees of state, local, and tribal 

emergency management and civil defense agencies who 

work in cooperation with FEMA when performing 

official, hazardous duties related to a declared major 

disaster or emergency. 

Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003

The PSOB Program allowed a one-time payment of benefits for 

deaths involving traumatic injuries caused by an external force, but not 

for deaths caused by heart attacks or strokes that resulted from line-ofduty activities. To make benefits available to the survivors of public 

safety officers that die from heart attacks and strokes, Congress enacted 

 13 The criteria were “nonroutine stressful and strenuous physical activity” and 

“competent medical evidence to the contrary.” 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

2

the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act (Hometown Heroes Act) in 

December 2003.14 This Act amended the PSOB Act to include benefits 

for the survivors of public safety officers who die of heart attacks or 

strokes in the line of duty or within 24 hours of a triggering effect while 

on duty. The Hometown Heroes Act included a statutory presumption 

that public safety officers who die from a heart attack or stroke following 

a “nonroutine stressful or strenuous” physical public safety activity or 

training died in the line of duty for the program’s purposes. However, 

under the Act, the statutory presumption that heart attacks or strokes 

following stressful or strenuous physical activity are line-of-duty-related 

deaths can be overcome with “competent medical evidence to the 

contrary.” This means that an officer’s pre-existing medical conditions 

that contribute to a heart attack or stroke may render the claim for 

benefits not compensable. 

To be eligible for PSOB Program benefits under the Hometown 

Heroes Act, claimants must provide evidence that all of the following 

requirements are met: 

• The decedent was a public safety officer. 

• The public safety officer died as the direct and proximate result 

of a heart attack or stroke. 

• While on duty, the public safety officer either (1) engaged in 

line-of-duty activity that included law enforcement, fire 

suppression, rescue activity, hazardous material response, 

emergency medical services, disaster relief activity, or other 

emergency response activity or (2) participated in a formal 

training exercise. 

• The line-of-duty activity or participation in a formal training 

exercise involved nonroutine stressful physical activity or 

nonroutine strenuous physical activity. 

• The heart attack or stroke occurred while the public safety 

officer was engaging in this activity, or participating in this 

training, or within 24 hours after this activity.15

 14 See Appendix I for the text of the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 

2003. 

15 42 U.S.C. § 3796 (2006). 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

3

PSOB Program Regulations 

In January 2004, OJP began updating the PSOB regulations to 

incorporate not only the provisions of the Hometown Heroes Act passed 

the preceding month, but also 18 other congressional amendments to the 

program and numerous court decisions over a 30-year period. The 

updated PSOB Program regulations took effect on September 11, 2006. 

OJP’s Definition of Terms From the Hometown Heroes Act 

The Hometown Heroes Act used the terms “nonroutine stressful or 

strenuous” physical activity and “competent medical evidence to the 

contrary” as criteria for determining whether PSOB claims would be 

eligible for compensation. OJP defined these terms in developing the 

PSOB Program implementing regulations. The OJP General Counsel, the 

primary author of the updated regulations, said he used language from 

the Hometown Heroes and the PSOB Acts, comments from members of 

Congress in committee hearings, input from public meetings, and 

consultations with experts in the public safety and medical fields to 

develop definitions for these terms. We summarize below the information 

used by the General Counsel to define the terms. 

Nonroutine Stressful and Strenuous Physical Activity 

 The Hometown Heroes Act states that benefits are available only if 

heart attacks and strokes occurred under certain circumstances. While 

the Hometown Heroes bill was under consideration, members of 

Congress narrowed the criteria for receiving compensation. For example, 

on November 21, 2003, House Judiciary Committee Chairman 

Sensenbrenner stated that the legislation as originally proposed: 

[W]as to cover officers who suffered a heart attack or stroke as a result of 

nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity; however, testimony 

[by public safety officials] . . . indicated that the legislation as drafted was 

overboard . . . it would cover officers who did not engage in any physical 

activity but merely happened to suffer a heart attack at work.16 

 16 Cong. Rec., H12299 – H12300 (daily ed. Nov. 21, 2003) (statement of Rep. 

Sensenbrenner). Testimony by public safety officials at a hearing conducted by the U.S. 

House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security: Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act, H.R. 

919, 108th Cong, 1st sess., June 26, 2003. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

4

According to Chairman Sensenbrenner, amendments to the bill were 

proposed, and eventually adopted, to address this concern and create a 

presumption that: 

[A]n officer who died as a direct and proximate result of a heart attack or 

stroke died as a direct and proximate result of a personal injury 

sustained in the line of duty if: (1) that officer participated in a training 

exercise that involved nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity 

or responded to a situation and such participation or response involved 

nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical law enforcement, hazardous 

material response, emergency medical services, prison security, fire 

suppression, rescue, disaster relief or other emergency response activity; 

(2) that officer suffered a heart attack or stroke while engaging or within 

24 hours of engaging in that physical activity; and (3) such presumption 

cannot be overcome by competent medical evidence.17

The amendments excluded activities of a “clerical, administrative, 

or non-manual nature” and listed examples: 

• sitting at a desk; 

• typing on a computer or talking on the telephone; 

• reading or writing paperwork or other literature; 

• watching a police or corrections facility’s monitors of cells or grounds; 

• teaching a class; 

• cleaning or organizing an emergency response vehicle; 

• signing a prisoner in or out; 

• driving a vehicle on routine patrol; and 

• directing traffic at or participating in a local parade.18

Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner further stated that, for the 

purposes of the Hometown Heroes Act, “nonroutine stressful or 

strenuous physical activities” included: 

• involvement in a physical struggle with a suspected or convicted 

criminal; 

• performing a search and rescue mission; 

• performing or assisting with emergency medical treatment; 

• performing or assisting with fire suppression; 

• involvement in a situation that requires either a high-speed response 

or pursuit on foot or in a vehicle; 

• participation in a hazardous material response; 

• responding to a riot that broke out at a public event; and 

 17 Cong. Rec., H12299 – H12300 (daily ed. Nov. 21, 2003) (statement of Rep. 

Sensenbrenner). 

18 Cong. Rec., H12299 – H12300 (daily ed. Nov. 21, 2003) (statement of Rep. 

Sensenbrenner). 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

5

• physically engaging in the arrest or apprehension of a suspected 

criminal.19

The amendments and examples listed above subsequently were 

incorporated into the Hometown Heroes Act that was passed by both 

Houses and signed into law. According to the General Counsel, OJP 

used the list of examples of ineligible activities provided by Congress in 

comments as guidance for devising the PSOB Program regulations and 

claims review process. 

 In the final regulations for the PSOB Program, OJP defined the 

term “nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity” as: 

• Nonroutine stressful physical activity means activity that 

is not performed as a matter of routine (routine means 

that the level of stress is routine and not simply that the 

activity itself is performed with some regularity) and 

entails non-negligible physical exertion. 

o For line-of-duty activity, it means activity that poses or 

appears to pose significant threats or hazards or 

involves reasonably foreseeable risks of such threats 

or hazards and provokes or causes an unusually high 

level of alarm, fear, or anxiety. 

o For training exercises, it means training that 

realistically simulates significant threats or hazards 

and provokes or causes an unusually high level of 

alarm, fear, or anxiety. 

• Nonroutine strenuous physical activity means activity that 

is not performed as a matter of routine (routine means 

that the level of physical exertion is routine and not 

simply that the activity itself is performed with some 

regularity) and entails an unusually high level of physical 

exertion.20

 19 Cong. Rec., H12299 – H12300 (daily ed. Nov. 21, 2003) (statement of Rep. 

Sensenbrenner). 

20 28 C.F.R. § 32.13 (2006). 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

6

• Nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity

specifically does not include actions of a “clerical, 

administrative, or nonmanual nature.”21 

Competent Medical Evidence to the Contrary 

Another term OJP defined was “medical evidence to the contrary.” 

Under the Act, “medical evidence to the contrary” could override the 

presumption that a death from stroke or heart attack occurring within 

24 hours of non-routine stressful activities was caused by line-of-duty 

activities. OJP’s General Counsel said he consulted with the Armed 

Forces Medical Examiner from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology 

(AFIP) to help define the term and develop the criteria OJP would use to 

determine if “competent medical evidence to the contrary” was present 

that could exclude a claimant from receiving benefits.22 According to the 

General Counsel, the goal was to craft a definition that would be 

medically sound yet usable in the PSOB claims determination process.23 

After consulting with the AFIP, OJP included in the proposed 

regulations several criteria with enumerated risk factors that would help 

it determine if factors other than the physical activity engaged in in the 

line of duty (for example, coronary heart disease or obesity) caused the 

heart attack or stroke. OJP received comments on the proposed 

regulations objecting to the inclusion of such criteria in the proposed 

regulations. These comments led OJP to replace its proposed risk-based 

criteria in the final PSOB regulations with an approach that considers 

whether the decedent had taken the necessary steps to treat known 

medical conditions that may lead to a heart attack or stroke, such as by 

taking medications for high blood pressure or high cholesterol. The AFIP 

advised OJP that a pathologist would need 10 years of medical records to 

provide a complete picture of a person’s medical history and actions 

taken to address medical issues related to heart attacks or strokes. 

 21 42 U.S.C. § 3796 (2006). 

22 The AFIP is an agency of the Department of Defense that provides pathology 

consultation, education, and research to the federal government. The AFIP has over 

820 employees, including over 120 pathologists and other scientists. 

23 OJP uses the term “determination” to mean the written decision that outlines 

the facts of the public safety officer’s activities and death, a statement of whether the 

claim is approved or denied, and the reasoning for the decision. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

7

PSOB Claims Process 

Submitting a PSOB Claim Under the Hometown Heroes Act

The PSOB Program is a claims program with eligibility and 

evidentiary requirements for establishing entitlement to benefits. The 

Hometown Heroes Act includes the same evidentiary requirements for 

heart attacks and strokes as for traumatic injury deaths (such as 

shooting deaths or asphyxiations in a fire). Moreover, it requires 

additional documentation to prove that the officer engaged in nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity or training that directly or 

proximately caused the heart attack or stroke. Under the PSOB Act, the 

claimant is responsible for providing OJP with evidence that 

demonstrates that the claim meets the criteria of the program and is 

compensable. 

Claimants apply for PSOB Program compensation by filling out a 

claim application form (see Appendix II for claim forms) and working with 

the public safety agency in which the officer served to obtain other 

required documentation and evidence. The claimant, independently or 

through the public safety agency, submits the following supporting 

documentation for a death claim under the Hometown Heroes Act: 

• PSOB Report of Public Safety Officer’s Death form 

completed and signed by the head of the public safety 

agency; 

• detailed statement of circumstances from the initiation 

of the incident to the pronouncement of the officer’s 

death; 

• investigation, incident, or accident reports; 

• death certificate; 

• autopsy report or a statement signed by the head of the 

public safety agency or the medical examiner explaining 

that no autopsy was performed; 

• toxicology report or a statement signed by the head of 

the public safety agency or the medical examiner 

explaining that no analysis was performed; 

• a detailed statement listing all of the officer’s on-duty 

actions during the 24-hour period prior to the onset of 

the heart attack or stroke; and 

• 10 years of medical records related to the officer’s health 

(optional). 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

8

The claimant also is required to submit information about 

beneficiaries so that, if the claim is approved, OJP can determine who 

should receive compensation.24 The following documents are requested 

from the claimant to assist OJP in establishing beneficiaries: 

• current marriage certificate; 

• divorce decrees for all the officer’s and current spouse’s 

previous marriages, including references to physical 

custody of children; 

• death certificates for all the officer’s and current 

spouse’s previous marriages if ending in death; 

• birth certificates for all of the officer’s surviving children, 

regardless of age or dependency; and 

• for each stepchild, a statement of a parent-child 

relationship. 

Claimants can submit claim applications and any accompanying 

documents to the PSOB Office by mail, facsimile, or online through the 

BJA website. 

Processing PSOB Claims 

The BJA’s PSOB Office receives PSOB death, disability, and 

education assistance claim applications; ensures claims are complete 

(which includes reviewing the documents submitted by the claimant and 

public safety agency and contacting claimants for additional 

documentation and information); and makes initial determinations of 

whether claims are compensable and should be approved. The PSOB 

Office then sends the claim applications and draft determinations to OJP 

OGC, which conducts a second review to identify any legal issues. Both 

the BJA and OJP OGC must concur on the claim determination based on 

the evidence submitted by a claimant and the public safety agency.25 

 24 The PSOB Program beneficiary hierarchy is: (1) a surviving spouse or eligible 

children, if no surviving spouse or eligible children then, (2) the individual designated 

as beneficiary by the public safety officer at their agency or organization, (3) the 

individual designated as the beneficiary on the most recently executed life insurance 

policy, and (4) if the officer has no beneficiary listed on an insurance policy, the 

surviving parents. See 42 U.S.C. § 3796(a)(4). 

25 OJP Instruction I 1310.72B, Redelegation of Authority to the Head of the 

Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program (PSOB), April 4, 2001. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

9

If a claim is approved, the PSOB Office sends a letter notifying the 

claimant and simultaneously submits a request for payment to the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury. If a claim is denied, the PSOB Office sends 

a notification to the claimant that includes the reasons for the denial and 

information on the appeals process. Claimants can appeal denied PSOB 

claims through three levels: Hearing Officers, the BJA Director, and the 

federal courts. During a hearing, the claimant has the opportunity to 

present new or additional evidence and call witnesses. See Appendix III 

for a description of the appeals process. 

From December 2003 to November 29, 2007, the PSOB Office 

received a total of 291 PSOB death claims submitted under the 

Hometown Heroes Act.26 The PSOB Office issued the first determination 

for a Hometown Heroes Act claim on December 6, 2006, and as of 

November 29, 2007, had made decisions on 112 claims (65 denials and 

47 approvals), paying out $12,889,452. The amount of the one-time 

death benefit, currently $303,064, is determined by the date of the 

public safety officer’s death.27 Appendix IV presents demographic 

information from the completed Hometown Heroes Act claims. 

Figure 1 on the next page shows the PSOB claims review process 

and Appendix V outlines the staffing, positions, and duties of each office 

working on the PSOB Program. 

 26 The BJA received a total of 299 PSOB death claims submitted under the 

Hometown Heroes Act, but 6 claims were for deaths that were determined not to be 

heart attacks or strokes and therefore not eligible under the Act, 1 claim did not have 

evidence that the cause of death was a heart attack or stroke, and 1 claim was 

withdrawn before final processing. All eight of those claims were received prior to the 

effective date of the final PSOB Program regulations on September 11, 2006, and were 

not included in the data analysis for this report. Additionally, the BJA does not count 

claims that were denied because the decedent was not a public safety officer in the 

totals for PSOB death claims submitted under the Hometown Heroes Act. We included 

those claims in our analysis because the BJA processed them like other Hometown 

Heroes Act claims. 

27 All approved claims are awarded the entire amount of the benefit. Since 

October 15, 1988, the benefit has been adjusted each year on October 1 to reflect the 

percentage of change in the Consumer Price Index. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

10

 

Figure 1: PSOB Claims Review Process 

CLAIM INITIATED: Claim

received by PSOB Office and

logged in by Control Desk

 Senior Benefits

Specialist assigns claim

to Specialist or Senior

Benefits Specialist

Is the claim

application

complete?

Benefits Specialist requests

documentation from

claimant or public safety

agency

Yes

A

Benefits Specialist

reviews claim and

documentation

No

Claimant or public safety

agency returns missing

documents or information

to PSOB Office

Does the OGC

attorney need

additional

information?

B

Yes

No

Benefits Specialist

prepares case file

and drafts

determination

Senior Benefits

Specialist reviews

case file and may edit

determination

PSOB Director

reviews case file and

may edit

determination

OGC attorney

reviews case file

and determination

1 The PSOB Office may have to request information from

 claimants and public safety agencies numerous times.

2 The three green boxes make up the PSOB Office Editing Process

 that is repeated in the claims review process.

NOTES:
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

11

A

B

Is the claim

approved?

Benefits Specialist requests

documentation from claimant

or public safety agency

Claimant or public safety

agency returns missing

documents or information to

PSOB Office

PSOB Office editing

process

OGC attorney reviews case

file and draft determination

PSOB Office sends

letter to claimant

DENIAL: Claimant

receives letter of denial and

has the right to appeal

Does the claim

require a

pathologist

review?

Yes

No

Independent pathology

review

Was there

"medical

evidence to

the contrary?"

Yes

No

PSOB Office sends

letter to claimant

APPROVAL: Claimant

receives letter of approval

and U.S. Treasury issues

check

Yes

No
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

12

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

OF THE OIG REVIEW 

Purpose 

We examined how OJP has implemented the Hometown Heroes Act 

and how it processes PSOB claims submitted under the Act. As part of 

this review, we assessed the timeliness of claims processing and the 

reasoning behind claims determinations. We initiated this review after 

receiving congressional requests that expressed concern about OJP’s 

implementation of the Hometown Heroes Act. Specifically, several 

members of Congress raised concerns about the timeliness of OJP’s 

claims processing and whether OJP’s interpretation of the terms 

“nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity” and “competent 

medical evidence to the contrary” was resulting in a high claims denial 

rate. 

Scope and Methodology 

 The review encompassed the two offices involved in reviewing and 

processing PSOB claims: OJP’s PSOB Office, which organizationally is 

under the BJA, and OJP’s OGC. We examined each office’s role in the 

PSOB Program and gathered information related to the reasons for 

claims determinations, how OJP developed its definitions of terms for 

processing claims, factors affecting timely claims processing, and OJP’s 

initiatives to improve the claims adjudication process.28 Our fieldwork, 

conducted from July 2007 to October 2007, included in-person and 

telephone interviews, data analyses, and document reviews. 

Interviews

 We interviewed 14 OJP management officials and staff, 5 

contractors, 1 medical examiner, and 7 representatives from 4 public 

safety officer associations. Table 1 lists the individuals interviewed. 

 28 We did not evaluate the appeals process for denied claims of the PSOB 

Program because no claims had completed any level of appeal during our review period. 

Subsequent to our fieldwork, as of November 29, 2007, Hearing Officers completed 

reviews of four claims. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

13

Table 1: Interviews Conducted by the OIG 

Organizations Officials Interviewed 

BJA, OJP • Director, BJA 

• Director, PSOB Program 

• Senior Benefits Specialist (3) 

• Benefits Specialist (3) 

• Paralegal Specialist 

• Hearing Officer, Contractor (4) 

OGC, OJP • General Counsel 

• Deputy General Counsel 

• Staff Attorney (2) 

• Attorney, Contractor 

• Paralegal Specialist

Armed Forces Institute of 

Pathology 

• Armed Forces Medical Examiner

Public Safety Officer Associations 

Congressional Fire Services 

Institute 

• Director of Government Affairs 

Fraternal Order of Police • Executive Director 

• Senior Legislative Liaison 

International Association of Fire 

Fighters 

• Assistant to the General President 

• Legislative Representative 

National Fallen Firefighters 

Foundation 

• Chairman of the Board 

• Executive Director 

Data Analyses and Document Reviews

 We reviewed and analyzed data that the BJA provided on 

Hometown Heroes Act claims processed through November 29, 2007. 

These data included the number of PSOB claims submitted; the number 

of PSOB claims approved, denied, and pending; and the claim 

determinations for decided cases. 

 We reviewed OJP regulations, budget documents, organizational 

charts, position descriptions, contracts, staff performance plans, 

memoranda, policy guidance, and manuals. Additionally, we reviewed 

legislation, congressional testimony, and news articles related to the 

Hometown Heroes Act. We examined a sample of three PSOB death 

claim case files. We also reviewed the PSOB database and analyzed 

PSOB Office staff members’ notes on claims entered into the database. 

Our analysis was limited in part because the PSOB Office database does 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

14

not capture the date a claim application is received by OJP and does 

contain fields to capture the progress of each case through the claims 

review process. 

Because OJP OGC could not provide documentation or records 

related to its process for updating the PSOB regulations, we relied on the 

OGC staff’s verbal account of their activities and on interviews with 

public safety officer associations and the AFIP Medical Examiner 

regarding their involvement in the rulemaking process. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

15

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW 

After passage of the Hometown Heroes Act in December 

2003, a backlog of 201 claims developed during the 33 

months that it took OJP to issue final regulations 

implementing the Act. Moreover, even after OJP issued 

the regulations in September 2006, its claims processing 

was slow because many claims had been submitted 

without required documentation, OGC’s legal reviews of 

claims were lengthy, and pathology reviews on some 

claims were not available. After its first year of 

processing claims under the Act, OJP implemented 

several initiatives to improve its timeliness. 

We also found that OJP denied most of the Hometown 

Heroes Act claims it processed during the first year 

because of the lack of evidence demonstrating the 

officers engaged in “nonroutine stressful or strenuous 

activity.” While most of these denials met the intent of 

the Hometown Heroes Act, some denials were based in 

part on an OJP criterion that narrowly interpreted the 

Act. In the fall of 2007, OJP changed this criterion and 

issued a policy that all responses to emergency calls 

would be considered “nonroutine,” a revision that 

appears to have resulted in more approved claims. 

In the sections that follow, we describe how OJP revised the PSOB 

regulations that govern the Hometown Heroes Act program and how a 

significant backlog of claim applications developed. We also describe 

actions OJP has taken in the past year to reduce the backlog and 

expedite claims processing. We then examine OJP’s decisions on claims 

through November 29, 2007, as well as the effect of recent policy 

changes. 

I. OJP’S PROCESSING OF HOMETOWN HEROES ACT CLAIMS 

Claims were not processed until regulations were updated. 

Thirty-three months passed from the time the Hometown Heroes 

Act was enacted in December 2003 until OJP issued final PSOB 

regulations implementing the Act in September 2006. During that 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

16

period, OJP accumulated a backlog of 201 claims.29 As of November 29, 

2007, OJP had received an additional 90 Hometown Heroes Act claims 

for a total of 291 claims. Figure 2 shows the Hometown Heroes Act 

claims received each fiscal year from the enactment of the Act through 

November 2007. 

Figure 2: Hometown Heroes Act Claims by Fiscal Year

51

125

216

282

51

74

91

66

9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 (Oct &

Nov only)

Number of Claims

Existing Claims New Claims Received

216

125

282

51

291

Note: Fiscal year 2008 includes data only from the first 2 months, as of November 29, 

2007. 

Sources: PSOB claims determinations, PSOB Office database 

The PSOB Office issued its first determination on a Hometown 

Heroes Act claim on December 6, 2006. Over the next year, through 

November 29, 2007, OJP made determinations on 112 of the 291 claims 

 29 Appendix VI summarizes the factors that affected the length of time it took to 

rewrite the PSOB Program regulations. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

17

(38 percent) it had received. As of November 2007, there were 179 

Hometown Heroes Act claims awaiting OJP’s final determination, 

including many claims that had been pending for 3 or 4 years. For 

example, over 40 percent of the claims submitted in fiscal year (FY) 2004 

had not been decided. Table 2 shows the number of claims pending and 

closed by fiscal year. 

Table 2: Pending and Closed Claims by Fiscal Year 

(as of November 29, 2007) 

Pending Claims Closed Claims 

Fiscal Year 

Number 

Percentage 

of Fiscal 

Year 

Number 

Percentage 

of Fiscal 

Year 

Total 

Claims 

Received 

2004 22 43.1% 29 56.9% 51

2005 32 43.2% 42 56.8% 74

2006 56 61.5% 35 38.5% 91

2007 60 90.9% 6 9.1% 66

2008 9 100.0% 0 0.0% 9

Total 179 61.5% 112 38.5% 291

Note: The table includes data for only 2 months of FY 2008, as of November 29, 2007. 

Source: PSOB claims determinations 

Although OJP could not make final determinations until the PSOB 

Program regulations were issued, we found OJP’s subsequent processing 

of claims was untimely. To assess OJP’s processing of claims, we 

examined how long it took OJP to process claims after issuance of the 

regulations.30 As shown in Figure 3, processing times for the 112 

completed claims ranged from 3 to 14 months, with a median of 10 

months. 

 30 The PSOB Office’s database does not include a field for the date of a claim 

application’s receipt. However, we were able to estimate the date a claim was received 

by reading through the “notes” section of the database. To calculate the claims 

processing time, we used September 11, 2006 (the date PSOB Program regulations were 

enacted), as the start date for the 102 completed claims OJP received before that date. 

For the 10 completed claims that OJP received after that date, we used the estimated 

receipt dates from the “notes” section of the database. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

18

Figure 3: Total Processing Time for Completed 

Hometown Heroes Act Claims

20

15

10

5 6

3 4

8

17

10

7 7

0

5

10

15

20

25

3 Months

4 Months

5 Months

6 Months

7 Months

8 Months

9 Months

10 Months

11 Months

12 Months

13 Months

14 Months

Months

Number of Claims

Median

 Sources: PSOB claims determinations, PSOB Office database 

We found that the PSOB Office had taken some steps to prepare 

claims for processing once the final regulations were issued, but these 

initial actions did not enable OJP to make timely determinations after the 

regulations were in place. Case notes in the database maintained by the 

PSOB Office show that while OGC was revising the regulations, PSOB 

Office staff reviewed each claim application, contacted claimants or 

points of contact, informed claimants about the status of their claims 

and the regulations being developed, and requested missing information 

or documentation based on the original PSOB Program requirements.31 

Despite these efforts, three factors slowed the processing of claims after 

issuance of the regulations: (1) many claims were submitted without 

required documentation, (2) OJP OGC’s legal reviews were time 

consuming, and (3) OJP experienced difficulty in obtaining independent 

 31 We based part of our analysis on the PSOB Office’s database, which contains 

a “notes” section where staff members record activity on claims and appeals. Although 

the notes do not always record every action on a claim, we found that entries often 

included information about such as matters as calls from claimants, questions from 

OGC attorneys, and when the case file was moved in and out of the PSOB Office. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

19

pathology reviews of PSOB claims. The following sections discuss these 

factors and the steps OJP has taken recently to address them. 

Factor 1: Claimants submitted incomplete claims. 

PSOB Office staff members told us that approximately 90 percent 

of the Hometown Heroes Act claims were submitted without all the 

information or documentation OJP needed to make a determination. We 

found that three issues contributed to incomplete claim submissions and 

the extensive time it took claimants and public safety agencies to provide 

the missing information. First, the PSOB Program instructions and 

guidelines for completing claim applications were unclear and did not 

provide sufficient direction to inform claimants of the information 

requirements. Second, some of the required documents, particularly 

medical records, were difficult or costly for the claimants to obtain. 

Third, smaller and volunteer public safety agencies did not always have 

the administrative structure to adequately respond to OJP’s information 

requests. When incomplete claim applications were received, the PSOB 

Office staff said they contacted claimants and public safety agencies to 

obtain missing information, but could not continue processing the claims 

until responses were received. PSOB Office staff members stated that 

delays resulting from obtaining necessary information from the claimants 

and public safety agencies added from a week to a year to the processing 

of individual claims. A discussion of each of these three issues follows. 

Limited Instructions and Guidance on Completing Claims 

We found that although information about the Hometown Heroes 

Act and how to submit a claim under the Act was available, the 

information was not presented in an understandable manner. OJP 

provided instructions on submitting claims that were scattered among 

standardized claim forms, the PSOB Program regulations, two checklists, 

a Hometown Heroes fact sheet, and a list of frequently asked questions 

about the Act. No single document took a claimant step-by-step through 

the application process, detailed the eligibility and beneficiary 

requirements, and specified all required documentation. 

For example, the required standardized PSOB claim forms – Claim 

for Death Benefits (completed by the claimant) and Report of Public 

Safety Officer’s Death (completed by the public safety agency) – contained 

limited instructions that did not explain the claim process or list all the 

documents that may be required for a claim determination. Instead, the 

instructions referred the claimant to the PSOB Act and regulations for 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

20

eligibility requirements. However, the statutory and regulatory language 

was not easy for claimants and public safety agencies to interpret. 

We also found that although OJP had issued instructions for 

public safety agencies, it had not developed separate instructions 

specifically for claimants. Specifically, OJP had two checklists for public 

safety agencies (one for firefighters and one for law enforcement) that 

outlined all documents, reports, and information needed for the claim 

application. The checklists provided helpful tips to public safety 

agencies and encouraged properly documented submissions.32 No 

similar checklist existed for claimants. Therefore, a claimant who may 

have been working on an application without the assistance of a public 

safety agency may not have realized certain documentation was needed 

for the claim. 

We also reviewed two PSOB Office documents added to the BJA 

website in September 2007 that contained only general information 

about the PSOB Program. The first, a fact sheet, provided a history of 

OJP’s implementation of the Hometown Heroes Act. The second, a list of 

frequently asked questions, addressed questions arising from concerns 

over PSOB Office requests for medical information and the backlog of 

claims. Neither provided instructions on how to fill out claims 

applications. 

Difficulties in Obtaining Documents

The second issue that contributed to incomplete claim 

submissions was the difficulty and costs associated with obtaining 

certain required information. For example, according to PSOB Office 

staff and representatives of public safety agencies that we interviewed, 

the request to submit 10 years of medical records for the pathologist’s 

review was particularly challenging for some claimants. Other 

documents that PSOB Office staff told us have sometimes proved difficult 

for claimants to obtain included birth certificates, death certificates, 

marriage certificates, and divorce decrees. In addition, PSOB Office staff 

said that claimants must sometimes pay fees to obtain the required 

medical records and other documents. 

 32 For example, the checklists stressed the importance of and provided 

instructions for completing the detailed statement regarding the 24-hour period prior to 

the public safety officer’s heart attack or stroke. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

21

Lack of Administrative Structure in Small and Volunteer Public Safety 

Agencies 

The third issue that contributed to incomplete applications was the 

fact that many smaller public safety agencies, particularly volunteer fire 

and emergency services departments, lacked the administrative systems 

and resources to produce the required documentation. Such documents 

include the PSOB Report of Public Safety Officer’s Death, a second 

statement detailing the circumstances of the officer’s death, and other 

investigation, incident, or accident reports. The PSOB Director stated 

that unlike larger public safety agencies, many small and volunteer 

departments do not have extensive recordkeeping requirements or do not 

generate standard reports, such as daily logs of volunteers’ activities, 

which would facilitate the collection of documentation for a claim. 

Additionally, smaller departments may not have personnel designated to 

act specifically as a liaison or point of contact for claimants and the 

PSOB Office. Because only the public safety agencies can generate some 

of these documents, if they cannot or do not provide them, claimants 

may submit incomplete applications. 

Factor 2: OJP OGC’s reviews of claims were lengthy. 

The second factor that contributed to the slow processing of claims 

was the time it took OJP OGC to conduct its legal reviews of claims. 

From our examination of the PSOB Office database, we estimated that 

OGC took, on average, 50 days to review a claim; however, these reviews 

ranged from under 10 days to over 200 days.33 Figure 4 shows the 

number of days that OGC spent reviewing those claims that were 

completed as of November 29, 2007. 

 33 The PSOB Office database does not contain separate data fields to record 

dates that claims are sent to and received from the OGC. The dates used in our 

analysis were extracted from the “notes” section of the database. The “notes” section 

did not have dates for all the completed claims. The times estimated do not include 

periods when the case files were returned to the PSOB Office for additional 

documentation or information, but only the actual time the case file was in OGC for 

review. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

22

Figure 4: Number of Days OGC Spent Reviewing Claims That 

Were Completed as of November 29, 2007

17

15

12

15

6

4

5

8

3

4

3

0

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1 to 15

16 to 30

31 to 45

46 to 60

61 to 75

76 to 90

91 to 105

106 to 120

121 to 135

136 to 150

151 to 165

166 to 180

Over 180 

Number of Days in OGC Review

Number of Claims

 Sources: PSOB claims determinations, PSOB Office database 

We found that the OGC’s review of some claims was lengthy 

because of its inefficient internal practices for requesting documentation 

and assigning claims to attorneys. We discuss each of these practices 

below. 

OGC Requests for Documentation 

The PSOB Director and staff told us that OGC attorneys often 

would not review a claim or make a final determination until all

documentation was in the case file because they wanted to review the 

case in its entirety. However, according to PSOB staff, in some cases the 

additional documents were not necessary for making a determination on 

whether the claim was compensable under the Hometown Heroes Act. 

For example, documents to establish potential beneficiaries (e.g., birth 

certificates, marriage licenses, or divorce decrees) are not needed unless 

a claim is determined to be compensable. 

PSOB Office staff also told us that the OGC attorneys sometimes 

requested additional documents and information, such as a report of a 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

23

decedent’s activities for the 24 hours prior to the heart attack or stroke, 

even when the claim did not meet the basic criteria established by the 

PSOB Act or the Hometown Heroes Act. For example, a claim is not 

compensable if the decedent was not a public safety officer, so an activity 

report would have no effect on the claim determination. The OJP 

General Counsel told us the attorneys seek additional information 

because they are looking for every possible way to approve a claim. The 

Deputy General Counsel further stated that the attorneys in the past 

have asked for information that now, with greater experience, realize may 

not be necessary. 

PSOB staff also told us that different attorneys would review the 

same claim at different times but not keep records of their reviews, which 

sometimes led to duplicative information requests.34 In addition, PSOB 

and OGC staff told us that the attorneys had no formal method for 

recording information requests in a case file, so their requests were not 

documented unless they were noted in the PSOB database by PSOB 

Office staff members. The Deputy General Counsel told us that she 

encourages attorneys to put information requests and comments in 

writing, but acknowledged that while attorneys sometimes write 

comments on tracking slips attached to the case files, communication is 

informal and often occurs through telephone or e-mail conversations. 

This informal system does not ensure that all communication is 

recorded. 

In addition, the PSOB Office staff said that the length of the claims 

review process was extended because OGC attorneys made numerous 

inconsistent edits to the draft determinations prepared by the PSOB 

Benefits Specialists and Senior Benefits Specialists. According to PSOB 

Office staff, they prepared the determinations using a template developed 

specifically for that purpose, but OGC attorneys continued to make 

changes to the formatting and standard language in the template. The 

PSOB Office staff said the changes were sometimes based on legal issues, 

but more often were stylistic, with several attorneys reviewing the claims 

and each making individual changes according to their personal styles. 

According to PSOB staff, these types of changes caused confusion among 

the PSOB Office staff and delayed issuance of determinations. The 

Deputy General Counsel told us that she had directed the attorneys to 

cease editing based on writing style and to focus only on editing that 

affected the legal issues related to the claim. 

 34 OGC does not have an automated or formal paper system for recording notes 

about PSOB claims. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

24

OGC Case Assignments 

OGC’s practice has been to assign PSOB claims, including 

Hometown Heroes Act claims, among many OGC attorneys, according to 

the attorneys we interviewed and the General Counsel. The General 

Counsel stated that he wanted staff attorneys to gain experience in all 

OJP programs, so he intentionally spread the work among a number of 

attorneys. As of October 2007, various types of PSOB claims (death, 

disability, and education) were assigned to 11 of the 16 OGC staff 

attorneys. Each of the 11 attorneys spent about 20 to 30 percent of his 

or her time on the PSOB Program.35 However, the PSOB Director 

believed that because so many different attorneys work on the claims on 

less than a half-time basis, they were less able to develop expertise on 

the PSOB Program and especially on the Hometown Heroes Act. The 

PSOB Director said she had asked OGC for a smaller cadre of attorneys 

to dedicate more of their time to the PSOB Program, but OGC had not 

changed its work assignments. 

No Timeliness Standards 

While discussing with OGC staff how they reviewed PSOB claims, 

we noted that OGC had no established timeliness standards for 

conducting its claims reviews.36 In response to our request for any 

established performance standards, the Deputy General Counsel stated 

the she had told attorneys to give a claim to another attorney if they 

could not examine the case file within 2 weeks of receipt, but that the 

OGC has no specific goals or measures to guide the length of the case 

review. The Deputy General Counsel told us that timeliness was a part 

of the office’s customer service standards and referred us to the OGC 

staff attorney performance work plans. When we reviewed these work 

plans, we found they included the following language under the overall 

goal of customer service: “Reviews client documents for legal 

compliance/sufficiency within the timeframe agreed upon with client 

office or General Counsel.” However, we did not find that OGC attorneys 

 35 The one contract attorney hired to work on PSOB claims was working full 

time solely on claims submitted under the Hometown Heroes Act. 

36 In 2004, former Attorney General Ashcroft directed the PSOB Office to make 

a determination on all filed PSOB claims within 90 days of receiving all necessary 

information and identifying all potential beneficiaries. Our review of the PSOB database 

case notes indicated that the PSOB Office completed their portion of processing claims 

well within 90 days after receiving all the necessary documentation from claimants. 

(John Ashcroft, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, memorandum to OJP 

and BJA, Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program, May 13, 2004). 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

25

had made any agreements regarding timeliness with the PSOB Office 

staff members. Consequently, there were no established time standards 

for conducting the claims reviews. 

Factor 3: Claims were delayed pending new contract pathologist. 

The final factor that delayed OJP’s processing of Hometown Heroes 

Act claims was that OJP experienced difficulty in obtaining independent 

pathology reviews. OJP initially sent all the claims to the AFIP, where an 

AFIP pathologist reviewed the medical records, toxicology report, and 

autopsy report for each claim. This review took from 4 to 6 weeks. Then, 

as the claims review process progressed, OJP sent the AFIP only those 

claims that had been initially found to be compensable under the Act. 

However, in May 2007 the AFIP ceased doing any reviews for the PSOB 

Program because an increasing amount of its time was focused on 

military casualties from the war in Iraq. After the AFIP informed OJP 

that it could no longer perform these reviews, OJP searched for a new 

contract pathologist. In the interim, claims were delayed. In September 

2007, OJP hired a contract pathologist to review the PSOB death claims. 

OJP also identified two other contract pathologists who are available 

should the workload require additional reviewers. 

OJP has taken steps to improve the timeliness of the claims review 

process. 

Toward the end of our review period, in the fall of 2007, the BJA 

and OJP OGC implemented improvements to address several of the 

factors that contributed to the lengthy claims review process. These 

initiatives included additional guidance to claimants and internal 

procedural changes to speed the claims review process. While early 

evidence suggests that some of these initiatives have improved claims 

processing, we could not fully determine their effect on the process 

because they were implemented near the conclusion of our field work.37 

For example, during FY 2007, the first full year of processing 

claims after issuance of the final regulations, OJP issued 72 

 37 However, OJP provided the OIG with an update to the numbers of Hometown 

Heroes Act claims processed and pending in an e-mail in March 2008. As of March 26, 

2008, OJP had received a total of 303 claims, of which 213 had been decided, 1 had 

been withdrawn by the claimant, and 89 were pending a determination. OJP had 

approved 122 claims and denied 91 claims, 8 of which were overturned on appeal to 

approvals. The backlog of claims OJP developed during the time the program 

regulations were developed was reduced from 201 to 27. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

26

determinations. However, during just the first 2 months of FY 2008, OJP 

issued 40 determinations, although processing of the cases began before 

that time. These improvements are discussed below. 

Additional Guidance and Change in Claim Requirements

To address the problem of receiving incomplete claims submissions 

and to reduce claimants’ response times to requests for additional 

documentation, OJP took the following four steps: 

The Attorney General’s Guide to the Hometown Heroes Act 

The BJA, with input from public safety officer associations, 

developed a guide to the Hometown Heroes Act for claimants and public 

safety agencies. The guide compiles claim application instructions in a 

single document that contains detailed information on the Hometown 

Heroes Act and the criteria used to evaluate claims. The guide also 

translates the legal language used in the statute and program 

regulations into clearer instructions. The BJA said it expected to issue 

the guide in February 2008. 

Local Assistance State Teams

To help claimants and public safety agencies complete PSOB claim 

applications, the BJA awarded a grant in 2006 to the National Fallen 

Firefighters Foundation to develop the Local Assistance State Teams 

(LAST) program. When a firefighter dies in the line of duty, a team is 

deployed to aid the decedent’s family, the public safety agency, and 

colleagues with funeral arrangements, counseling ̧ and submitting a 

PSOB claim, among other things.38 As of October 2007, 36 states and 

the District of Columbia had active teams. The PSOB Director said she 

believed the LAST program would improve the public safety community’s 

knowledge of the PSOB Program. She also told us that the program had 

already resulted in the submission of more complete PSOB claims 

applications than in the past. In August 2007, the BJA awarded a grant 

to an organization called Concerns of Police Survivors to establish the 

same type of program for the law enforcement community. 

 38 Team leaders are chosen by each individual state fire service. Teams are 

composed of a chaplain, an honor guard, a behavior health specialist, a survivor, and a 

fire officer. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

27

Medical Records

On October 2, 2007, the BJA Director issued a memorandum 

directing the PSOB Office to request 10 years of medical records for 

Hometown Heroes Act claims only if the evidence in a case file suggests 

that something other than the line-of-duty activity caused the heart 

attack or stroke. If an autopsy report, coroner’s report, or death 

certificate identifies the presence of cardiovascular disease or other risk 

factors, this information will not be considered unless the case file shows 

that the decedent knew of and continued to aggravate these conditions. 

The memorandum further stated that OJP will review any medical 

records requested from the claimant for mitigating evidence in favor of 

the claim.39 The PSOB Office expects this decision to reduce delays in 

processing of claims where medical records are not required to make a 

determination. 

State and Local Line-of-Duty Death Benefits

Similarly, in October 2007 the OGC Deputy Counsel told us that 

because some states and localities do not offer death benefits for heart 

attacks and strokes, OGC is no longer requesting that the PSOB Office 

obtain documentation on payment of these benefits from claimants in 

those states or localities. 

 

Changes to Internal Processing of Claims

 In addition, OJP recently has introduced the following three 

initiatives to improve the timeliness of claims processing: 

“12-a-Week” Initiative

The PSOB Director started a “12-a-week” initiative in August 2007 

to work through the pending Hometown Heroes Act claims and to 

accelerate the PSOB claims process overall. The PSOB Office staff and 

the Director meet weekly to discuss the 12 oldest Hometown Heroes Act 

claims in their caseload. The staff members determine whether the case 

files include all the evidence necessary to render a decision and then 

forward those that do to OGC for legal review. According to the PSOB 

Director, referral is not delayed if the case file lacks documents or 

information that would not affect the decision to approve or deny the 

 39 Domingo Herraiz, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Public Safety 

Officers’ Benefits Program Policy Memorandum, re: “Competent Medical Evidence to the 

Contrary,” October 2, 2007. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

28

claim, such as beneficiary information. The BJA Director stated in 

testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 4, 2007, 

“We are fully committed to this 12-in-a-week strategy until all claims 

have been processed and normalized to about seven new cases per 

month by March 2008.” 

Outreach Administrative Contractors

In FY 2007, the PSOB Director created the position of Outreach 

Administrative Contractor to handle the most time-consuming tasks 

associated with PSOB claims processing, such as contacting claimants 

and public safety agencies for additional information and documents. 

The Director said she believed this would allow the Benefits Specialists 

and Senior Benefits Specialists to concentrate on analyzing case file 

evidence and rendering determinations. The PSOB Director hired one 

contractor in September 2007 and said she intended to hire at least one 

additional contractor if needed. 

PSOB Case Management System

In October 2007, the PSOB Office began the first phase of 

implementing a new case management system. The PSOB Office’s 

previous database did not allow for detailed searches, reminders for 

follow-up actions on claims, or a direct link to scanned documents that 

accompany claims. The new system enables the Benefits Specialists to 

check supporting scanned documentation within the claim record, which 

can improve claim processing times. Further, unlike the old database, 

the new system can be accessed by OGC attorneys, and attorneys 

working on PSOB claims can view entire case files in the system and 

leave notes for the PSOB Office, such as requests for additional 

documentation or information. Thus, communication between the PSOB 

Office and OGC attorneys will be conducted in the electronic case file for 

future reference. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

29

II. OJP’S DECISIONS ON CLAIMS PROCESSED 

From September 11, 2006, to November 29, 2007, OJP made 

determinations on 112 of 291 Hometown Heroes Act death claims. 

Overall, OJP approved 47 claims and denied 65 claims. The benefits 

awarded in the 47 approved claims totaled $12,889,452. 

We reviewed the determinations for all 112 completed Hometown 

Heroes Act claims to examine the reasoning behind OJP’s decisions. 

Because claimants and members of Congress had expressed concern 

that OJP’s interpretation of the Hometown Heroes Act’s terms 

“nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity” and “competent 

medical evidence to the contrary” resulted in unfair denials of many 

claims, we examined how OJP applied these terms when evaluating 

claims.

Denied Claims 

OJP determined that 10 of the 65 denied claims did not contain 

evidence to meet basic eligibility criteria established in the PSOB Act or 

the Hometown Heroes Act. For example, in several cases the decedent 

was not a public safety officer, or was not on duty in the 24 hours prior 

to death, or did not perform line-of duty activities. 

For the remaining 55 denied claims that met the basic eligibility 

criteria, we found that OJP focused primarily on the claim’s evidence 

regarding the stressful and strenuous nature of the decedents' physical 

activity or training exercise. Overall, OJP concluded that the 55 claims 

were non-compensable because the evidence in the applications did not 

sufficiently show that the public safety officer engaged in “stressful or 

strenuous physical activity or training.”40 Finding “competent medical 

evidence to the contrary” was not a factor in any of the denied claims. 

We determined that OJP narrowly interpreted the Act for at least 

19 claims denied during the first year of claims processing. OJP denied 

19 claims in which officers had responded to calls based on a criterion 

that was changed in October 2007. After October 2007, OJP considered 

 40 To be considered stressful, the physical activity must pose or appear to pose 

“significant threats or hazards” or involve “reasonably foreseeable risks of such threats 

or hazards” and provoke or cause “an unusually-high level of alarm, fear, or anxiety.” 

To be considered strenuous, the activity must “entail a high level of physical exertion.” 

See 42 U.S.C. § 3796 (2006). 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

30

any response to an emergency call to be “nonroutine” and attributed the 

approval of some subsequent claims to the policy change. 

We present OJP’s reasons for the 65 denials below. 

Cases That Did Not Meet the Basic Criteria of the Act 

As mentioned above, 10 of the 65 claims denied were cases in 

which the applications did not show that the claims met the basic 

criteria established in the PSOB Act or the Hometown Heroes Act. Five of 

these claims did not show evidence that the decedent was a public safety 

officer, four did not show evidence that the officer was on duty in the 24 

hours prior to the heart attack or stroke, and one did not show evidence 

that the death met the requirements for “line of duty” activities.41 

Cases Involving Officers Who Did Not Respond to a Call 

Twenty-seven of the 65 denied claims involved officers who were on 

duty but did not respond to a call and did not engage in a qualifying 

activity as required by the PSOB Act.42 The officers’ activities in these 27 

claims varied from administrative duties, such as filling out paperwork or 

attending meetings, to ancillary activities, such as routine maintenance 

on department vehicles, marching in a parade as a member of the 

department, installing smoke detectors for citizens, or manning the 

station house. 

OJP denied other claims in this category because the officers’ 

activities did not involve great physical exertion, such as correctional 

officers who made rounds and assisted in food service but did not 

respond to an emergency, or because the officers conducted only regular 

patrols or routine traffic stops. 

 41 The PSOB program defines line of duty activity as “activity or an action that 

[the public safety officer] is obligated or authorized by statute, rule, regulation, 

condition of employment or service, official mutual-aid agreement, or other law, to 

perform . . . under the auspices of the public agency he serves, and such agency (or the 

relevant government) legally recognizes that activity or action to be so obligated or 

authorized. . . . [The activity] is performed (as applicable) in the course of law 

enforcement, providing fire protection, engaging in rescue activity, providing emergency 

medical services, or training for one of the foregoing, and such agency (or the relevant 

government) legally recognizes it as such.” See 28 C.F.R. § 32.3 (2006). 

42 Qualifying activities include law enforcement, fire suppression, rescue 

activity, hazardous material response, emergency medical services, disaster relief 

activity, or other emergency response. See 42 U.S.C. § 3796 (k)(1)(A) (2006). 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

31

Cases Involving Officers Participating in Training 

Another 9 of the 65 denied claims involved public safety officers 

who died after suffering a heart attack or stroke while participating in 

training activities that did not meet the definition established in the 

PSOB Program regulations. Some of these officers attended training 

sessions in a classroom that did not involve physical activity or engaged 

in physical fitness training (such as lifting weights or walking on a 

treadmill) that did not simulate significant threats or hazards and 

provoke or cause an unusually high level of alarm, fear, or anxiety, as 

required by the regulations. In other cases, OJP denied claims because 

officers prepared the training or observed participants in a training 

session but did not engage in the training activities. 

Cases Involving Officers Who Responded to a Call: Potentially Narrow 

Interpretation of the Act

Nineteen of the 65 denied claims involved cases in which a public 

safety officer had responded to a call. According to the OJP claim 

determinations, the claims involved officers who suffered a heart attack 

or stroke: (1) before arriving at the scene, (2) after responding to a false 

alarm, (3) after responding to a call where they did not conduct any 

activities at the scene, (4) after responding to a call where they did not 

conduct any “law enforcement, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous 

material response, emergency medical services, prison security, disaster 

relief, or other emergency response” activities at the scene, or (5) after 

responding to a call where they conducted activities at the scene that 

were not considered stressful or strenuous.43 

OJP evaluated the 19 claims using a narrow interpretation of the 

Hometown Heroes Act. OJP concluded that the claims did not have 

enough evidence to show that the officer’s response to the emergency call 

involved “nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity” or that the 

officers’ activities after responding to the call qualified as “law 

enforcement, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous material response, 

emergency medical services, prison security, disaster relief or other 

emergency response activity.”44 Responses to emergency calls were not 

automatically defined as “nonroutine” and OJP evaluated the evidence in 

each claim to determine if the officers’ emergency response activities met 

 43 42 U.S.C. § 3796 (k)(1)(A) (2006). 

44 42 U.S.C. § 3796 (2006). 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

32

the requirements of the Hometown Heroes Act and PSOB Program 

regulations. 

However, after the first year of processing claims, OJP broadened 

how it applied the definition of “nonroutine activities.” In October 2007, 

the BJA issued a policy memorandum that stated that any response to 

an emergency call was to be considered “nonroutine.”45 The 

memorandum also stated that claims were to be reviewed based more on 

how stressful or strenuous an activity was and less on the frequency 

with which it was performed. Further, no activity was to be considered 

routine based solely on the public safety agency’s description of the 

activity as being “routine” or “ordinary.” The PSOB Director told us that 

the policy was instituted as a result of the experience gained after a year 

of processing claims. She said that OJP realized that responding to an 

emergency call should be automatically defined as “nonroutine.” These 

19 denied claims were decided prior to issuance of the October 2007 

memorandum. 

After issuance of the policy memorandum, the Director of the 

PSOB Office told us that the revised policy had resulted in more 

approved claims. The Director further stated that she intended to call 

each claimant whose Hometown Heroes Act claim had been denied prior 

to issuance of the clarification and whose claim was not already in the 

appeals process, to inform the claimant of the new policy. OJP also 

waived the standard appeal deadline of 33 days after notice of denial to 

allow these claimants to appeal the denied claims if they chose. 

Our examination of the determinations after the policy change 

confirmed that the number of approved claims increased after the change 

in the policy. Prior to October 2007, OJP denied 58 of 72 claims and 

approved 14. In comparison, during the first 2 months of FY 2008, OJP 

issued another 40 determinations, denying 7 claims and approving 33.46 

 

(Cont.) 

45 OJP OGC considers this policy direction a “rebuttable presumption.” 

Domingo Herraiz, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Public Safety Officers’ 

Benefits Program Policy Memorandum, re: “Nonroutine Stressful or Strenuous Physical 

Activity,” October 2, 2007. 

46 Our review of the claims determinations indicated that the increase in 

approvals after October 2007 may not be solely attributable to the policy change. Only 

8 of the 33 approved claims (and none of the 7 denied claims) involved officers 

responding to a call that had similar circumstances to the 19 denied claims mentioned 

above. These eight approved claims involved officers who suffered a heart attack or 

stroke before arriving at the scene, after responding to a false alarm, or after arriving on 

the scene and not conducting any activities. The remaining 25 approved claims had 

evidence showing that the public safety officer engaged in law enforcement, fire 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

33

Additionally, we reviewed Hearing Officers’ reports from the four 

appeals that were completed after the issuance of the October 2007 

memorandum.47 These four appealed claims were among the 19 denied 

claims involving officers who responded to calls. Hearing Officers 

recommended approvals for all four claims, and the BJA Director 

concurred with the approvals.48 

Table 3 on the next page summarizes OJP’s stated reasons for 

denying the 65 claims, and Appendix VII provides additional details on 

the officers’ activities as described in the claim determinations. 

 

suppression, rescue, hazardous material response, emergency medical services, prison 

security, disaster relief, or other emergency response activities that were considered 

“nonroutine stressful or strenuous” and were not based on the broader application of 

the definition in the October 2007 memorandum. 

47 As of November 29, 2007, 30 of the 65 claims that OJP determined were not 

compensable had been appealed to a Hearing Officer. Hearing Officers had completed 

reviews of 4 of the 30 appeals. 

48 During the appeal hearings, claimants had the opportunity to present 

additional or new evidence and call witnesses. For example, one claimant had 14 

witnesses that testified to the fire response activities, the severe weather conditions that 

hampered the fire response, or the stressful and strenuous nature of the fire response. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

34

Table 3: OJP’s Reasons for Denying Completed Claims 

Reasons for Denial Number of 

Claims 

CASES THAT DID NOT MEET BASIC CRITERIA 10 

Not a public safety officer 5 

Not on duty the 24 hours prior to heart attack or stroke 4 

Activities were not conducted in line of duty 1 

CASES INVOLVING OFFICERS WHO DID NOT RESPOND TO A CALL 27 

Conducted only administrative duties 6 

Did not respond to a call and was not engaged in fire suppression, responding to 

a fire, rescue emergency or situation, police emergency or situation, or training 15 

Did not respond to a call – conducted regular correctional duties 2 

Did not respond to a call – conducted regular patrol or traffic stop 4 

CASES INVOLVING TRAINING 9 

Participated in routine, non-stressful, non-strenuous training activities 7 

Prepared and tested a fire training maze, which was routine and not stressful or 

strenuous 1 

Observed participants in a training session but did not engage in activity 1 

CASES INVOLVING OFFICERS WHO RESPONDED TO A CALL 19 

Responded, but had heart attack or stroke while getting ready to respond or 

before arriving at scene 4 

Responded, but did not conduct any activities at the scene 3 

Responded, but conducted supervisory duties or no physical activities. 2 

Call responded to was not an emergency or the officer did not conduct any law 

enforcement or emergency activities 3 

Call responded to was a false alarm, or the officer was told to turn around or did 

not proceed 5 

Activities performed were routine and not stressful or strenuous 2 

Total 65 

Source: PSOB claim determinations 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

35

Approved Claims 

We also reviewed OJP’s determinations for the 47 approved claims 

to identify activities that OJP determined to be the type of “nonroutine 

stressful or strenuous physical activity or training” covered by the 

Hometown Heroes Act. The following four synopses are presented as 

examples that illustrate the types of activities performed by public safety 

officers in the approved claims: 

• A firefighter participated in training that involved survival skills 

and the agency’s first “air consumption drill.” During the 

training, he wore full protective gear and a self-contained 

breathing apparatus. The firefighter brought an injured 

colleague out of the building, removed a firefighter from a hole 

in the floor, participated in search and ventilation simulations, 

climbed stairs, and carried fire hoses. He then completed four 

laps of the course until his low air pressure alarm sounded. 

Later the firefighter complained of not feeling well and was 

transported to a medical facility, where he was pronounced 

dead as a result of a heart attack. 

• A police officer and aid workers were dispatched to a residence 

of a diabetic male with a history of aggressive behavior toward 

medical responders and law enforcement officers in treatment 

situations. The officer arrived at the scene first and asked for 

backup assistance once he was in the bedroom. He then 

pushed the emergency distress button on his radio. A struggle 

between the officer and man could be heard over the radio. 

The officer stated that the subject had a gun, but that he had 

managed to get the individual in handcuffs. Additional law 

enforcement officers entered the room, observed signs of a 

struggle, and found the officer unconscious on the bed. After 

being transported to a hospital, the officer was pronounced 

dead as a result of a heart attack. 

• Less than 2 minutes after receiving a call, a firefighter 

responded in full “turn-out” gear to a house fire. He 

immediately helped breach the first floor walls to expose the 

fire and then extinguished the flames. The firefighter later 

collapsed and was transported to a hospital, where he was 

pronounced dead as a result of a heart attack. 

• An emergency medical technician (EMT) responded to two calls 

during his shift: a fire alarm in a commercial building and an 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

36

auto accident with entrapped individuals. At the site of the 

accident, the EMT extracted a passenger from the vehicle and 

collapsed when helping load the passenger into the ambulance. 

The EMT was transported to a hospital, where he was 

pronounced dead as a result of a heart attack. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

37

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

OJP took 33 months to develop implementing regulations and was 

slow in processing submitted claims. As a result, it had completed only 

112 (38 percent) of the 291 Hometown Heroes Act claims it had received 

as of November 29, 2007. After the updated PSOB Program regulations 

became effective, OJP’s slow progress in completing determinations for 

Hometown Heroes Act claims during the first year continued because of 

inefficiencies in the claims review process. The inefficiencies included 

lengthy legal reviews of claims and multiple requests for additional 

documents by OJP OGC, no established timeframes for attorney reviews, 

no formal method of recording attorneys’ requests for information, 

incomplete claims submissions, and delayed pathology reviews that 

prevented timely assessments of claims. 

 In the fall of 2007, the BJA initiated several actions designed to 

expedite the claims review process. For example, the BJA awarded 

grants to public safety officer associations that formed teams to help 

deceased officers’ families and public safety agencies submit more 

complete PSOB claim. The BJA also began developing more user-friendly 

guidance for PSOB claimants and agencies and began forgoing requests 

for information from claimants and agencies that is not critical to a claim 

determination. Although we could not fully determine the effect of the 

OJP initiatives because they were implemented near the conclusion of 

our field work, early evidence suggests that the timelines of claims 

processing has improved. For example, while OJP issued determinations 

on 72 claims during all of FY 2007, in the first 2 months of FY 2008, it 

issued determinations on 40 claims. 

Our review of OJP’s completed claim determinations showed that 

OJP initially denied most claims based on an evaluation of the stressful 

and strenuous nature of the physical activity or training exercise. 

However, in some cases OJP used a narrow definition of what qualified 

as “nonroutine” for evaluating and denying the claims. In October 2007, 

OJP issued a policy change that implemented a broader definition that 

considers all emergency calls as “nonroutine.” The PSOB Director told 

us that OJP made this change based on a year of experience processing 

claims and recognizing the need to clarify the definition of “nonroutine.” 

Since this policy change, more claims have been approved, and OJP has 

notified past claimants of the changed standards to allow them to appeal 

their denials. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

38

To further improve management of the Hometown Heroes Act 

claims process, we recommend that the BJA and OJP OGC take the 

following actions: 

1. The BJA should finalize the “Attorney General’s Guide to the 

Hometown Heroes Act.” 

2. The OJP OGC staff attorneys should use the PSOB Office case 

management system to record their case notes, requests for 

documentation, and other case-related communication with the 

PSOB Office. 

3. OJP OGC should establish more definitive performance 

timelines for attorneys’ reviews of PSOB claims to facilitate 

claims processing. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

39

APPENDIX I: The Hometown Heroes Survivors 

Benefits Act of 2003 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

40
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

41

APPENDIX II: PSOB Death Claim Forms 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

42
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

43
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

44
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

45

APPENDIX III: PSOB Program Appeals Process 

The PSOB Program provides three levels of appeal for denied 

claims: Hearing Officer, BJA Director, and judicial. A claimant has 33 

days from the date of the notification of determination to appeal a denial 

decision in writing to the PSOB Office. The BJA Director may grant a 

waiver of the 33-day response time if the claimant can show why the 

deadline could not be met. 

Hearing Officer 

The first level of appeal is to a Hearing Officer who arranges the 

date, time, and location of a hearing with the claimant. The claimant can 

present new evidence at this hearing. Once the hearing is completed, the 

Hearing Officer reviews all case file information and evidence, and then 

presents a report with an opinion on the claim to the BJA Director and 

OJP OGC. 

BJA Director 

Up to 33 days after the claimant is notified that a denial appeal 

was upheld by the Hearing Officer, the claimant has the right to appeal 

to the second level, the BJA Director. The BJA Director reviews the case 

file, any new evidence, consults with OJP OGC, and makes a 

determination on the appeal. 

Judicial 

After a claimant has exhausted the administrative levels of appeal, 

the claimant can appeal judicially to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. 1491(a). 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

46

APPENDIX IV: Demographics From Completed 

Hometown Heroes Act Claims 

The decedents in the 112 completed claims came from throughout 

the United States, and the majority worked for fire departments. Table 4 

displays demographic information about the decedents and Figure 5 

displays the type of public safety agencies in which the decedents 

worked. 

Table 4: Demographics of Completed Hometown Heroes 

Act Claims as of November 29, 2007 

Number Percentage 

Age of Decedent Median Age 51 

Range of Ages 24 - 78 

 

Gender of Decedent Male 111 99.1% 

Female 1 0.9% 

 

Cause of Death Heart Attack 105 93.8% 

Stroke 6 5.4% 

Not Specified 1 0.9% 

 Source: PSOB claims determinations
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

47

Figure 5: Types of Public Safety Agencies From Completed 

Hometown Heroes Act Claims as of November 29, 2007 

53%

14%

13%

2%

11%

7%

Fire Police

Sheriff Emergency Services

Other Emergency Services & Fire 

Note: The “Other” category includes agencies such as the National Park Service, 

corrections systems, and local wildlife departments. 

Source: PSOB claims determinations 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

48

APPENDIX V: Staffing for the PSOB Program 

Table 5: Staffing and Duties for the PSOB Office and Office of 

General Counsel as of September 30, 2007 

 

Position 

OnBoard 

Staff 

Number of 

On-Board 

Staff 

Reviewing 

Claims 

(Hometown 

Heroes Act)

Duties 

Director 1 1 (1) Manages the PSOB Program and staff; 

(2) Reviews all case files and may edit draft 

determinations before they are sent to OGC 

for legal review; 

(3) Presents information about the PSOB 

Program in various public safety forums and 

communicates directly with claimants if they 

ask to speak to her or make a complaint; and 

(4) Acts as the Chief of Staff/Deputy Counsel 

for the BJA Director (estimates that 60 to 70 

percent of time is devoted to the PSOB 

Program). 

Senior Benefits 

Specialist 

3 3 (1) Performs the same duties as the Benefits 

Specialists; and 

(2) Reviews case files and may edit the draft 

determinations prepared by the Benefits 

Specialists or fellow Senior Benefits 

Specialists. 

Benefits 

Specialist 

3 1 (1) Reviews claim applications and identifies 

any missing documentation or forms; 

(2) Contacts claimants and public safety 

agencies to request information and 

documents; 

(3) Analyzes the documentation to make a 

provisional determination on claims; and 

(4) Drafts determinations explaining the facts 

of the cases and reasoning for their decisions. 

Paralegal 

Specialist 

1 0 Works exclusively on appealed PSOB claims 

and arranges claimant hearings, tracks 

appeals, and acts as a liaison between the 

BJA and the contractor Hearing Officers. 

PSOB Office 

Administrative 

Assistant - 

Control Desk 

1 0 (1) Logs every new claim application into a 

PSOB database; 

(2) Assigns a claim number; and 

(3) Places the application into a case file. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

49

 Position 

OnBoard 

Staff 

Number of 

On-Board 

Staff 

Reviewing 

Claims 

(Hometown 

Heroes Act)

Duties 

Office of the 

General 

Counsel

General 

Counsel 

1 1 (1) Oversees and manages OGC; and 

(2) May review claims or offer legal advice to 

attorneys working on claims. 

Deputy General 

Counsel 

4 2 (1) One Deputy General Counsel spends 

about 50 percent of her time on the PSOB 

Program and reviews each PSOB case file 

after it is reviewed by an attorney and before 

it is returned to the PSOB Office. 

(2) A second Deputy General Counsel acts as 

an advisor to attorneys reviewing PSOB 

claims and fills in for the other Deputy 

General Counsel when needed. 

Staff Attorney 16 11 (1) Reviews all types of PSOB claims, 

including death claims filed under the 

Hometown Heroes Act; 

(2) Edits draft determinations prepared by the 

PSOB Office; and 

(3) Requests additional documentation from 

the claimant through the PSOB Office. 

(Staff attorneys estimate that they spend 20 

to 40 percent of their time reviewing PSOB 

claims.) 

Contract 

Attorney 

1 1 Conducts the same duties as staff attorneys 

but works full time on Hometown Heroes Act 

claims. 

Paralegal 

Specialist 

2 0 (1) Logs all PSOB case files in and out of the 

office; 

(2) Assigns claims to attorneys; and 

(3) Sometimes acts as a legal advisor to 

Hearing Officers during the appeal process. 

(4) Only one Paralegal Specialist is assigned to 

the PSOB Program. 

Contract 

Pathologist 

Pathologist 1 1 (1) Reviews the autopsy report, toxicology 

report, and any medical records from the 

decedent’s physicians; 

(2) Responds to a list of questions about the 

case prepared by OJP OGC; and 

(3) Prepares a report on the claim for OJP. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

50

APPENDIX VI: Factors That Affected the Update 

of the PSOB Program Regulations 

The implementing regulations for the Hometown Heroes Act 

became effective on September 11, 2006 – 2 years and 9 months after the 

Act’s enactment on December 15, 2003. In addition to the time 

consumed by the effort to define the terms “nonroutine stressful or 

strenuous physical activity” and “competent medical evidence to the 

contrary” (discussed in the Background section of the report), OJP’s 

General Counsel told us that three other significant factors contributed 

to the time it took to revise the program regulations. 

Extensive Revision of PSOB Program Regulations 

The OJP General Counsel told us that he reviewed the original 

PSOB Program regulations that were issued in 1977 and determined that 

they needed to be completely rewritten because (1) Congress had passed 

at least 18 amendments to the PSOB Act, creating inconsistent and 

conflicting statutory language; (2) the original regulations were 

convoluted, excessively wordy, and often just repeated the statute as 

opposed to expanding on the legislation; and (3) the Hometown Heroes 

Act introduced criteria that could not be incorporated into the existing 

language of the regulation. The General Counsel estimated that 

incorporating the necessary changes into the original program 

regulations required 95 percent of the language to be revised, which 

contributed to the time it took OJP to issue revised regulations. 

Review Process for Proposed and Final Regulations 

In November 2004, OJP OGC began discussions with the 

Department’s Office of Legal Policy to determine if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) would approve issuing an interim final 

rule for the PSOB Program so that OJP could start processing the claims 

it had received under the Hometown Heroes Act before the final 

regulations were issued.49 In January 2005, OGC sent a memorandum 

to the Office of Legal Policy that presented the argument for publishing 

an interim final rule. The Office of Legal Policy and OJP OGC discussed 

the issue and decided that OMB would not likely approve an exemption 

 49 An interim final rule is the issuance of a final rule (also called regulations) 

without prior notice and comment, but with a post-promulgation opportunity for 

comment. An agency then could revise the rule in the future based on the comments. 

This type of rulemaking allows the agency to issue a rule quickly. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

51

to the public notice and comment requirements of the federal rulemaking 

process. OJP decided to not request an interim final rule from OMB and 

to proceed with the slower process of issuing proposed and final rules. 

The Department’s review of OJP’s proposed PSOB regulations took a little 

over a month, and the subsequent OMB review took almost 3 months.50 

For the final regulations, the Department’s and OMB’s reviews took the 

same amount of time as the reviews of the proposed regulations. Overall, 

the Office of Legal Policy and OMB reviews added approximately 8 

months to the regulatory process. 

2006 Legislation and Court Decisions 

The General Counsel told us that he postponed completion of the 

final regulations for the PSOB Program because forthcoming new 

legislation and court decisions would affect the program and the 

proposed regulations had to be revised to reflect these developments. In 

September 2005, the House of Representatives passed the Department of 

Justice Reauthorization Act, which contained new amendments to the 

PSOB Act. Because it appeared likely that the law would be enacted 

before the end of that year, OJP OGC decided to wait to issue the PSOB 

Program regulations until the law was passed and signed by the 

President. That occurred in January 2006. The law made several 

modifications to definitions within the PSOB Act and required OJP to 

change and clarify the final regulations. In addition to the legislation, 

two U.S. Court of Federal Claims decisions issued on July 27, 2006, and 

August 2, 2006, changed other definitions in the regulations and 

required OJP OGC to amend the preamble to the final rule.51

 50 The Administrative Procedures Act requires that new or updated regulations 

be reviewed and approved by both the agency promulgating them and by OMB before 

the regulations are published in either proposed or final form. 

51 LaBare v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 111 (2006), and Groff v. United States,

72 Fed. Cl. 68 (2006).
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

52

APPENDIX VII: Public Safety Officers’ Activities 

as Described in Claim Determinations 

As of November 29, 2007, OJP had made a total of 112 claim 

determinations, of which 47 were approvals and 65 were denials. Fiftyfive of the 65 denied claims were denied because of a lack of evidence to 

demonstrate the decedents engaged in “nonroutine stressful or 

strenuous physical activity” as required by the Hometown Heroes Act. 

The following table summarizes the 55 public safety officers’ on-duty 

activities prior to their heart attack or stroke as listed in claims 

determinations and categorizes the activities by “reason for denial.” The 

remaining 10 of the 65 total denied claims are not included in the table 

because these claims were denied based on other eligibility requirements 

that did not require OJP to consider the nature of the officers’ activities. 

Table 6: Public Safety Officers’ Activities in Denied Claims 

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 1: 

• Conducted administrative duties and attended 

meetings during his shift 

• During the last meeting, made a presentation 

and appeared to be short of breath 

• After the meeting was over he returned home 

where he experienced shortness of breath and 

complained of chest pain and was transported 

to the hospital 

• Not on duty the day before 

Claim 2: 

• Worked a regular shift involving only 

administrative duties 

• Did not engage in any strenuous activity and 

died the following morning 

The public safety officer 

conducted administrative 

duties only.

Claim 3: 

• Attended a short meeting while on duty 

• Returned to his office and resumed his daily 

tasks 

• Yelled to the secretary that something was 

wrong and that he could not see 

• Emergency medical responders stated that it 

appeared he was having a stroke 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

53

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 4: 

• Attending a shift briefing when he fell to the 

floor, hit his head, shook, and had difficulty 

breathing 

• Had only conducted administrative duties in the 

24 hours prior to the heart attack 

Claim 5: 

• Conducted administrative duties as a member of 

the warrant squad 

• Logged new warrants and criminal summons, 

updated the database for warrants, and served 

three summonses, which involved driving to 

residences and having individuals sign forms 

• Had approved leave to work as uniformed 

security at a bank that night 

• Started work back at the station at 4 a.m. the 

next day and told others that he was going to 

focus on paperwork all day 

• Not seen after 4:30 a.m. and was found dead 

approximately 16 hours later at 8:45 p.m. that 

evening 

The public safety officer 

conducted administrative 

duties only.

Claim 6: 

• Conducted administrative duties and did not 

respond to any calls for service in the 24 hours 

prior to his death 

Claim 7: 

• Received no calls during the day 

• Examined gear, conducted house duties, and 

engaged in physical fitness 

• Heard lifting weights and was later found 

unconscious next to the rowing machine 

The public safety officer did 

not respond to a call and was 

not engaged in fire suppression 

or a situation, a rescue or a 

police emergency or response.

Claim 8: 

• Reported to work after having several days off 

• Under some stress because of possible evidence 

irregularities 

• Discussed the issue with a co-worker, became 

agitated over the situation, and made several 

related phone calls 

• May have felt ill, went home, and later collapsed 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

54

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 9: 

• Worked as a crew leader assisting citizens 

clearing land and chipping to reduce the fuel 

load in case of a wildfire 

• Activity was regularly provided to residents and 

did not involve a high level of physical exertion 

• Fell to his knees and lost consciousness while 

feeding trees into the chipper 

• No other activities or training prior to the 

clearing and chipping 

Claim 10: 

• Completed a walk test required by the 

department consisting of walking 1 mile in 16 

minutes or less 

• Completed the test in a little over 14 minutes 

and remarked that the test was taxing 

• Went home and collapsed 

• No other firefighter-related activity 48 hours 

prior to his death 

Claim 11: 

• Last shift started at 7 a.m. and ended 24 hours 

later 

• No calls for assistance during the shift and no 

activity other than an attempt to stop a fire 

hydrant from leaking 

• Conducted weight lifting and a treadmill 

workout during his shift 

• Stated that he was feeling ill and at home later 

that evening he had chest pains, trouble 

breathing, and lost consciousness 

The public safety officer did 

not respond to a call and was 

not engaged in fire suppression 

or a situation, a rescue or a 

police emergency or response.

Claim 12: 

• Performed general maintenance and inspected 

the building and department vehicles 

• Had complained of pain below the rib area when 

he arrived, but later said he felt fine 

• Took a break at 11 a.m. and was found shortly 

after slumped over on a couch 

• Had performed the same activities when on duty 

the day before 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

55

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 13: 

• Part of a team inspecting a motorcycle outlet 

• Inspection involved examining every motorcycle 

including its parts to determine if they had been 

tampered with or stolen and examining all 

paperwork associated with each motorcycle 

• Seized seven motorcycles 

• Had a heart attack the next day while off duty 

and conducting yard work 

• Engaged in no other law enforcement activity 

within the 24-hour period prior to his death 

Claim 14: 

• Helped prepare the agency fire vehicles for a 

fellow firefighter’s funeral 

• Served as part of the honor guard and attended 

the wake 

• Next morning, he went to his regular place of 

employment at 5 a.m. 

• Made a stop at a local store on his way to the 

fire station that evening and collapsed in the 

store parking lot 

Claim 15: 

• Marched and played a bass drum during a 

parade representing the department 

• Stepped away from the procession and sat down 

on the porch of a residence 

• Got up to walk to a nearby ambulance and 

collapsed 

The public safety officer did 

not respond to a call and was 

not engaged in fire suppression 

or a situation, a rescue or a 

police emergency or response.

Claim 16: 

• Was on call the evening before and day of his 

heart attack 

• Covered the station for short periods of time 

while other officers responded to calls 

• Attended the department’s board of trustees 

meeting and was chatting with other members 

at the apparatus bay after the meeting when he 

began to feel ill and was transported to the 

hospital 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

56

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 17: 

• Worked an overtime shift with no alarms 

• Called to cover the station 11 hours after 

finishing his shift because of an emergency 

natural gas odor response – he did not respond 

to calls 

• Later participated in a basketball game and had 

a heart attack while sitting on a bench 

Claim 18: 

• Worked on morning maintenance on the 

station’s three trucks with another firefighter 

• This included a daily inspection of all equipment 

and apparatus, including removing and testing 

equipment 

• Transported two smoke detectors to another 

station so they could be installed at a residence 

• Returned and advised other firefighters that 

they needed to clean both vehicles 

• Stated that he would drive one of the vehicles up 

the road to blow off some water and had a heart 

attack and veered off the road as he was driving 

back 

Claim 19: 

• Worked a normal 10-hour shift 

• Participated in union contract negotiations 

throughout the day 

• Did not respond to any emergency calls within 

24 hours of the heart attack 

• Called the fire station from home indicating he 

was in medical distress and was transported to 

the hospital 

The public safety officer did 

not respond to a call and was 

not engaged in fire suppression 

or a situation, a rescue, or a 

police emergency or response.

Claim 20: 

• Was on the way to the station when call was 

canceled 

• Assigned as standby at the station when 

another call came in for a refuse fire 

• Complained of feeling ill to his wife in the 

evening and found unresponsive in bed the next 

morning 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

57

Reason for Denial Activities 

The public safety officer did 

not respond to a call and was 

not engaged in fire suppression 

or a situation, a rescue, or a 

police emergency or response.

Claim 21: 

• Unloaded bingo supplies at the station prior to 

working the department’s weekly fundraiser 

• Complained of a severe headache, sat down on a 

truck, and was then loaded into an ambulance 

• No calls for service in the 24 hours prior to the 

stroke 

Claim 22: 

• Worked 16 hours at a correctional facility 

• Assisted with food service and a pill call, made 

rounds, and worked the tunnel and industries 

• Died the next day at home 

The public safety officer 

conducted regular correctional 

duties.

Claim 23: 

• Engaged in routine activities, including 

searching and escorting prisoners and other 

related duties 

• Suffered a heart attack while driving home at 

the end of his shift 

Claim 24: 

• Last two shifts were routine, and he engaged in 

usual road and foot patrol activities on his last 

shift 

• Next day began showing signs of cardiac stress 

while talking to co-workers 

Claim 25: 

• Conducted regular patrol checks and responded 

to reports of a couple arguing and teenage skate 

borders and bicyclists on campus property while 

on duty 

• Later collapsed while watching a training video 

Claim 26: 

• Responded to two calls in the 24 hours prior to 

his heart attack, one to assist and one in 

response to a report that a vehicle’s back 

window had been shattered 

• Approximately a week earlier, he had reported 

feeling dizzy during a routine traffic stop 

The public safety officer 

conducted a regular patrol or 

traffic stop.

Claim 27: 

• Felt ill after completing a traffic stop on a 

routine patrol 

• Asked his partner to drive him back to the 

station and later to pull over so that he could 

remove his vest to breathe easier 

• Stepped out of the vehicle and collapsed 

•
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

58

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 28: 

• Participated in a training drill that included 

donning personal protective equipment and 

lifting and checking breathing equipment 

• Each apparatus weighed roughly 30 pounds 

• Had a heart attack after returning home 

Claim 29: 

• Started his shift early at approximately 

3:30 p.m. to participate in physical training 

• Suffered a heart attack at approximately 

4:15 p.m. the same day 

• Day before his death had been scheduled as a 

day off, but he helped escort property 

technicians from one city to a neighboring city 

and then returned home 

Claim 30: 

• Had passed his physical exam and was certified 

to attend the mandatory basic training academy 

• Engaged in warm-up exercises and then an 

indoor diagnostic run – during the 12th and 

final lap of the run, he collapsed 

Claim 31: 

• Drove to various addresses within the fire 

district as part of map training 

• In the afternoon, participated in pump operation 

training, but his activities were limited to 

checking the medical equipment and evaluating 

an electrical problem on the pumper 

• Later, did some yard work, ate a meal, and 

watched TV before having a heart attack 

The training was not 

nonroutine and stressful or 

strenuous.

Claim 32: 

• Attended an EMT assessment class 

• Given instruction on lifting and moving patients 

and practiced CPR on mannequins 

• Went home after the class and went to bed 

• At 6 a.m. the following morning, he was gasping 

for breath 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

59

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 33: 

• Traveled to attend training 

• Morning consisted of classroom training 

• Afternoon was reserved for networking where 

participants were encouraged to engage in 

physical activity and the officer took a hike with 

others 

• Collapsed on the trail 

The training was not 

nonroutine and stressful or 

strenuous.

Claim 34: 

• Participating in a class at a correctional facility 

• Collapsed while attempting to plug in a fan 

behind some training mats 

The public safety officer 

prepared and tested a fire 

maze.

Claim 35: 

• Prepared and tested a fire training maze 

• Conducted trial run of the maze and then 

collapsed upon completion 

The public safety officer 

observed participants in a 

training session.

Claim 36: 

• Observed new hire testing on Saturday 

• Helped set up several testing stations and 

visited stations to check on participant 

performance 

• Only one call occurred over the weekend and he 

did not respond 

• Following Monday a medical call was dispatched 

to the officer’s residence where he was found in 

cardiac arrest 

The public safety officer had a 

heart attack or stroke while 

getting ready to respond to a 

call or before arriving at the 

scene.

Claim 37: 

• Reported that he was going to respond to a 

vehicle accident from his residence using his 

personal vehicle at 8:29 p.m. 

• Found unconscious in his vehicle a few minutes 

later 

• During the 24 hours prior, worked the 4 p.m. to 

midnight shift performing administrative duties, 

manning the volunteer station, and filling out 

paperwork 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

60

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 38: 

• Received a call concerning a residential fire at 

approximately 1:00 a.m. 

• Donned his equipment and collapsed as he was 

getting into the driver’s seat of one of the fire 

vehicles 

• Two days before, responded to three calls for 

service 

• For two calls, arrived after the other fire vehicles 

had left, and he was not needed 

• For the third call, involving a vehicle accident 

with no injuries, remained there on standby 

Claim 39: 

• Responded to an explosion and fire in a 

residence’s detached garage that was less than a 

mile from his home 

• Collapsed as he was getting out of his car 

• This is the only work activity that he performed 

in the 24 hours prior to his death 

The public safety officer had a 

heart attack or stroke while 

getting ready to respond to a 

call or before arriving at the 

scene.

Claim 40: 

• Worked a 24-hour shift that began at 7 a.m. 

• Engaged in “routine firehouse duties” such as 

cleaning, studying, and checking the apparatus 

• Conducted his mandatory physical fitness 

training by using the running machine 

• During this activity, station received an alarm 

• Reported to his truck, but was told he was not 

needed and collapsed soon after 

The public safety officer 

responded to a call, but did not 

conduct any activities or 

actions.

Claim 41: 

• Dispatched from his residence to provide 

backup 

• Arrived when the suspect was already in 

custody and he helped secure the scene, went to 

breakfast, and then went home 

• Found a short time later in his bathtub 

unconscious 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

61

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 42: 

• Attended a training session that involved 

viewing several police satellite scenarios and 

discussing law enforcement procedures and 

policies 

• After the training, received a call from his wife 

informing him that an ammonia pipeline break 

had occurred 

• Received permission to assist in the operations 

• Offered assistance at the scene, but none was 

needed 

• Returned home and collapsed on the front lawn 

The public safety officer 

responded to a call, but did not 

conduct any activities or 

actions.

Claim 43: 

• Responded to an EMS call the evening prior to 

his death 

• Other emergency responders were already on 

the scene, so he left without undertaking any 

actions 

• No other calls that day 

• Suffered a heart attack next day while driving 

and struck another vehicle when he crossed the 

center line 

Claim 44: 

• Worked for approximately 3.5 hours conducting 

supervisory duties related to the set-up and 

maintenance of a helicopter landing and take-off 

zone 

• Inspected the site and drove a truck 

• Went home at 1:15 p.m. and there were no other 

calls for his firefighter services that day 

• Was last seen alive that day at 11 p.m. and an 

ambulance was called the next morning 

The public safety officer 

responded to a call, but only 

conducted supervisory duties 

or no physical activities.

Claim 45: 

• Worked on a prescribed burn plan and then 

responded to a wildfire on the day of his heart 

attack 

• At the scene, he walked the fire line, observed 

dozer operations and broadcasted the weather 

• Later found 45 feet inside the fire line, partially 

burned and grasping a fire tool 

• Determined he died of a heart attack before the 

fire reached his body and had not engaged in 

any fire suppression activities in the vicinity 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

62

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 46: 

• Worked a 12-hour overnight shift 

• Responded to two calls not requiring police 

action 

• Completed the shift at 6 a.m. and that same 

morning an ambulance was dispatched to his 

house 

Claim 47: 

• Participated in normal activities and EMS calls 

during his 24-hour shift 

• Conducted an apparatus check, engaged in a 

patient transfer, transported a patient to the 

hospital, and possibly took part in physical 

fitness activity 

• Assisted with emergency medical care while 

transporting a patient to the hospital 

• Not involved in any fire incidents 

• Suffered a heart attack at the end of his shift 

The public safety officer 

responded to a call, but there 

was no emergency, law 

enforcement action, or 

emergency response.

Claim 48: 

• Responded to three calls 

• Two of the calls did not require agency resources 

• At the third call, he spread absorbent materials 

to soak up fluids after vehicle accident 

• Last seen alive that day at 11 p.m. 

• Found dead in his home the following day in his 

work clothes 

The public safety officer 

responded to a call, but it was a 

false alarm or the officer was 

told to turn around or did not 

proceed. 

Claim 49: 

• Responded to a call regarding a vehicle fire 

• En route, reported that the smoke was caused 

by leaking fluids instead of a fire and he 

returned to his residence 

• This was the only call during the 24-hour period 

prior to the heart attack 

• Next day he went to work at his regular place of 

employment and then drove to his sister’s 

residence where he felt ill and an ambulance 

was called 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

63

Reason for Denial Activities 

Claim 50: 

• Responded in full turnout gear to an alarm that 

turned out to be a false alarm 

• Returned to the station, completed some 

paperwork, spoke with some colleagues, and 

went to his vehicle to drive home 

• Found unconscious in the car 

• Had responded to one other false alarm in the 

24 hours prior to his death 

Claim 51: 

• Began to respond to a call, but as fire engine 

was leaving the station, he was instructed not to 

proceed 

• Once the fire engine returned to the station, he 

fell out of the driver’s side jump seat 

• Had not been involved in any other response in 

the 24 hours prior to his heart attack 

Claim 52: 

• Had a heart attack while driving to his regular 

job in construction 

• Responded to only one 911 call the day before 

regarding the smell of smoke at a residence that 

was determined to be a false alarm 

The public safety officer 

responded to a call, but it was a 

false alarm or the officer was 

told to turn around or did not 

proceed.

Claim 53: 

• Responded to a call in his personal vehicle, but 

on the way, all units were advised to return to 

quarters 

• Went to a nearby EMS unit and stated that he 

was experiencing chest and arm pain 

• Paramedic conducted an EKG, which appeared 

normal, so the officer returned home and was 

later found unresponsive 

The public safety officer 

responded to a call, but 

activities were routine and not 

stressful or strenuous.

Claim 54: 

• Responded to three medical alarms involving 

routine activities and one vehicle accident with 

no injuries during an overnight shift that ended 

at 7 a.m. 

• At 2 p.m. that day, he traveled to the local 

junior high school where he was an assistant 

coach 

• Found at approximately 3:10 p.m. collapsed in 

the gym locker room 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

64

Reason for Denial Activities 

The public safety officer 

responded to a call, but 

activities were routine and not 

stressful or strenuous.

Claim 55: 

• Watched television after having returned from 

several calls that were all documented as 

routine in nature 

• Started to have a seizure and then went into 

cardiac arrest
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

65

APPENDIX VIII: The Office of Justice Program’s Response 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

66
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

67
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

68
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

69
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

70
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

71
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

72
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

73
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

74
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

75
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

76
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

77
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

78

APPENDIX IX: OIG’s Analysis of the Office of Justice 

Program’s Response 

On March 5, 2008, the OIG sent a draft of this report to the Office 

of Justice Programs (OJP) with a request for written comments. OJP 

responded to the OIG in a memorandum dated March 18, 2008. The 

OJP response (Appendix VIII of this report) included comments on the 

findings of the OIG report, a list of statements in the OIG report that OJP 

claimed are “mistaken or incomplete,” and OJP’s specific responses to 

the recommendations. 

Although the OJP written response did not explicitly state 

concurrence or non-concurrence with the recommendations, on 

March 19, 2008, the OJP liaison confirmed that OJP agreed with all the 

recommendations. Further, the OJP written response provides its 

planned actions for implementing all the OIG’s recommendations. 

In this appendix, we address OJP’s commentary, OJP’s assertions 

of factual inaccuracies, and the actions proposed by OJP to implement 

the recommendations in our report. 

OIG ANALYSIS OF OJP’S COMMENTS 

OJP agreed with our finding that a lack of documentation and 

evidence from claimants contributed significantly to delays in processing 

Hometown Heroes Act claims. OJP also agreed that claims were delayed 

while OJP was searching for a new pathology contractor to conduct 

medical reviews for the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) claims. 

OJP’s response, however, disagreed with our finding that lengthy and 

inconsistent legal reviews contributed to the slow processing of 

Hometown Heroes Act claims. OJP’s response also took issue with our 

findings regarding the legal reviews of the claims. We believe that OJP’s 

response is not persuasive and is misleading. 

In general, OJP’s response stated that the OIG report does not 

acknowledge that the lengthy legal reviews were necessary and 

appropriate to address “often-complex factual, legal, and medical 

information.” The OIG is well aware of the complexities and issues from 

our review of claims determinations and discussions with both PSOB 

Office and OGC staff that process Hometown Heroes Act claims, which 

are detailed in the report. As described in our report, notwithstanding 

the complex issues, the evidence demonstrated that in some cases the 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

79

legal reviews were untimely because of inefficient internal OGC practices, 

questionable document requests, and OGC’s lack of timeliness standards 

for its legal reviews. Also, we note that the excessive delays in 

implementing the Hometown Heroes Act and in processing claims have 

been already acknowledged in congressional testimony by the 

Department. Regarding the time taken to begin processing claims, the 

former Attorney General stated, “It’s taken us too long, and I apologize to 

the families.”52 OJP’s suggestion in its response that the delays were 

reasonable is not supported by the evidence or the Department’s 

position.

Moreover, our analysis of the evolution of the PSOB Program and 

the decisions on claims showed that OJP initially applied a narrow 

interpretation of the Act’s requirement that a public safety officer’s 

activities be “nonroutine stressful and strenuous” in denying 19 claims.53

We note that OJP recently changed how it applies the term “nonroutine” 

in evaluating PSOB claims and that it invited all previously denied 

claimants to request an appeal. We also note that the first four denied 

Hometown Heroes Act claims that had completed the first level of appeal 

at the time of our review were overturned and approved. 

In the following paragraphs, we address in more detail each of 

OJP’s specific comments. 

Calculation of Time for OGC Legal Review 

 The OIG disagrees with the OJP assertion that the OIG incorrectly 

determined the time Hometown Heroes Act claims were in legal review. 

The data available to the OIG was sufficiently complete and confirmed by 

interviews with OJP staff, which supported the findings in the report. To 

ascertain the time it took OGC to conduct legal reviews, we reviewed all 

case notes contained in the PSOB Office database for each of the 112 

completed Hometown Heroes Act claims. We were able to identify the 

date a case file was sent from the PSOB Office to OGC and the date OGC 

 52 U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Oversight of the U.S. Department of 

Justice, 110th Cong., 1st sess., July 24, 2007. 

53 These 19 claims involved public safety officers that had suffered a heart 

attack or stroke after responding to a call but before arriving at the scene, after 

responding to a call that was a false alarm, after responding to a call and not 

conducting law enforcement or emergency activities at the scene, or after responding to 

a call and not performing any activity that involved great physical exertion at the scene. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

80

returned a case file in the vast majority (95) of the 112 claims.54 In 

addition, we were conservative in our estimates of the time taken for legal 

reviews, and we did not include any information from the database 

unless a PSOB Office staff member entered into the case notes a clear 

statement that a case file had been sent to or returned from OGC. 

OGC also argued in its response that our estimate of the time 

taken for legal reviews was incorrect because OGC attorneys do not use 

the PSOB Office database and the database does not include any caselogging information from OGC. We noted that OGC maintains a 

spreadsheet that identifies where a PSOB case file is at any time, but the 

dates in the “Received in OGC” and the “Returned to PSOB” columns are 

overwritten every time the case file is moved in and out of OGC. 

Consequently, the OIG could not use the OGC spreadsheet to estimate 

the times for legal review of the Hometown Heroes Act claims. The OIG’s 

estimate was based on an analysis of 85 percent (95 of the 112) of all the 

claims that had been completed, using the most complete data available 

in OJP, and we believe it is a valid portrayal of the time that OGC took to 

conduct legal reviews of Hometown Heroes Act claims. 

OJP asserted that the only applicable standard for judging its 

timeliness was the Attorney General’s 90-day deadline. We note that the 

Attorney General’s standard is applicable to the entire PSOB Office’s 

processing of claims, not OGC’s legal reviews. Nonetheless, our review 

found that OGC’s legal review of at least 26 of the 95 cases for which 

reliable data were available exceeded 90 days. 

Allegation of Unwarranted Length of Time in Processing 

OJP‘s response that the majority of the Hometown Heroes Act 

claims (75 percent) were processed by two OGC attorneys is not 

consistent with the information provided to the OIG during our review. 

We asked questions in several interviews with OGC staff about how 

 54 OJP is incorrect in its assertion that our method led us to count as part of 

the legal review process time it spent waiting for the PSOB Office to collect additional 

evidence or information from claimants. OJP stated that because OGC sometimes held 

case files while awaiting action by the PSOB Office, the OIG’s estimate wrongly included 

the wait time as part of the legal review. However, during our fieldwork, we were told 

that OGC did not retain case files after requesting that the PSOB Office collect 

additional evidence or information. OGC returned the case files to the PSOB Office 

because they contain evidence and contact information that Benefits Specialists need to 

obtain additional material requested by OGC reviewers. As a result, while we counted 

time spent waiting for additional documents or information in our overall estimate of 

total claims processing time, we did not attribute that time to the legal review process. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

81

PSOB claims are assigned for legal review. In August 2007, the General 

Counsel told us in an interview that he intentionally spread the PSOB 

Program work among many attorneys so that they could all gain 

experience and because death benefits claims are “depressing.” Also in 

August 2007, the Deputy General Counsel stated that 11 OGC attorneys 

worked on PSOB claims. She stated that while some attorneys have 

more experience with the Hometown Heroes Act, all of the 11 attorneys 

worked on Hometown Heroes Act claims.55 Additionally in August 2007, 

the OGC paralegal who assigns PSOB claims to attorneys told the OIG, 

“There were [originally] only two attorneys working on the Hometown 

Heroes Act claims, but now all the attorneys assigned to review claims 

are working on the[se claims].” 

 The OJP suggestion that reviewing the attorney signatures on the 

Hometown Heroes Act claim determinations would show that the 

majority of claims were reviewed by only a few OGC attorneys is 

misleading. After receiving the OJP response, we reexamined the claims 

determinations and confirmed that they contained only three signatures, 

those of the PSOB Benefits Specialist who prepared the determination, 

the PSOB Director who reviewed and approved the determination, and 

the OGC attorney who concurred with the determination. This attorney’s 

signature on the majority (64 of 112) of the Hometown Heroes Act claims 

determinations was that of the Deputy General Counsel. As described to 

us during our review, however, she did not conduct primary legal 

reviews. According to the General Counsel, he had assigned the Deputy 

General Counsel the responsibility to conduct a secondary review of all 

PSOB claims to ensure consistency. According to the Deputy General 

Counsel, the primary legal review was carried out by OGC staff and 

contract attorneys, and she then examined their legal analyses for 

consistency. That process was confirmed in all of our interviews, as OGC 

staff told us that every PSOB case file was routed through the Deputy 

General Counsel (or the attorney acting in her absence) for the secondary 

review. Therefore, it does not appear that the OGC attorney signatures 

on the claim determinations are those of the primary legal reviewers. 

The OJP statement that OGC attorney requests for documentation 

did not lead to unnecessary delays is also not supported by our review of 

the PSOB database or our interviews with PSOB Office and OGC staff. 

Not all of the documents collected during the claims review process are 

needed to begin the legal review. By waiting until all possible documents 

are in hand, OGC unnecessarily delayed beginning its legal reviews. The 

 55 In October 2007, the Deputy General Counsel told us that OGC had 

increased the number of attorneys working on the PSOB claims to 12. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

82

OIG agrees that it is often important for OJP to request additional 

information from claimants. We also agree that the example OJP gives is 

one of those instances where it is important to request additional 

information. In the OJP example, OJP requested information on a 

decedent’s activities for a longer period than 24 hours prior to the 

incident because OJP wanted to establish whether the onset of the 

officer’s heart attack or stroke actually occurred earlier. 

 However, some of the OGC requests for additional documentation 

were made when the evidence already at hand should have enabled the 

OGC attorney to proceed with the legal review of the claim, and in these 

cases, the claims process was delayed unnecessarily. For example: 

• Beneficiary Information – While it is OJP’s responsibility to identify 

all beneficiaries, documentation to establish each potential 

beneficiary’s eligibility (e.g., birth certificates, marriage licenses, 

divorce decrees) is not needed to begin evaluating whether the 

public safety officer’s death meets the criteria for the PSOB 

Program. 

• State and Local Death Benefits – In some cases, OGC 

unnecessarily delayed reviewing cases pending the receipt of hardcopy documents to confirm claimants’ statements as to whether 

they had received state or local benefits.56 In other cases, OGC 

asked the PSOB Office to obtain documentation on state or local 

benefits even though the state or locality where claimants resided 

did not provide benefits for death by heart attack or stroke. The 

Deputy General Counsel stated that OGC is no longer requesting 

this information for claims from those states or localities. 

• Basic Program Criteria Determinations – In some cases, OGC 

requested additional documentation when the evidence already at 

hand showed that the claims clearly did not meet basic PSOB 

Program criteria. For instance, OGC sometimes requested 10 

years of medical records even though the evidence showed that the 

decedent was not a public safety officer or had not been engaged in 

line-of-duty activity and so was not covered by the PSOB Program. 

Waiting until these types of documents are received before beginning 

legal reviews unnecessarily delays claims processing and increases the 

 56 While receiving such benefits does not affect the eligibility of a claimant 

under the Hometown Heroes Act, it helps OGC establish that another authority 

considered the public safety officer’s death to have been either in the line of duty or not. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

83

total processing time. Such delays contributed to OJP taking a median 

of 10 months to process claims after the PSOB regulations were issued. 

OJP asserts in its response that it maintains the “substance of 

much of the [OGC attorney’s] advice, commentary, requests for 

information, and legal review” in electronically stored media. However, 

that does not refute the OIG report finding that OGC has no formal 

record-keeping system to document its attorneys’ actions on PSOB 

claims. While OGC attorneys may keep their e-mails concerning their 

reasoning and advice on PSOB claims, there is no formal system for 

recording information requests in the hard-copy case file or case file 

database. This informal process could lead to duplicative requests for 

information. Further, OJP’s response conflicts with information it 

provided to us during our review. As stated in the OIG report, the 

Deputy General Counsel told us that she encourages attorneys to put 

information requests and comments related to a claim in writing. 

However, she said that communication with the PSOB Office was 

informal and often occurred by telephone, e-mail, or in person. 

Consequently, as we observed during our review, the PSOB case files 

generally contained no record of an OGC request unless it was put in by 

a PSOB Office staff member. 

The OJP assertion that our finding that OGC attorneys made 

inconsistent edits on claims determinations is “unsupported by data” 

does not address the issue that we raised. In our review of the claims 

determination templates OGC created for use by the PSOB Office, we 

noted instances in which different OGC attorneys made edits to the 

templates that PSOB Office staff told us left them confused as to which 

template version was current. Also, we saw instances in which draft 

determinations were passed back and forth between the PSOB Office and 

OGC numerous times to incorporate OGC edits, lengthening the time it 

took to process claims. The fact that the claims determinations were 

sometimes heavily edited was confirmed in interviews with both PSOB 

Office and OGC staff. For example, the PSOB Office Director told us that 

her staff was required to frequently revise documents based on what 

appeared to be individual language preferences not affecting the 

substantive legal issues. She told us that her office had stopped delaying 

the claims determinations for stylistic changes.57 In August 2007, the 

Deputy General Counsel stated that she had directed the attorneys not 

to make such stylistic changes unless it was necessary for legal 

 57 Stylistic changes we observed included such things as changes to the 

placement of bullets or the spacing of signature lines. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

84

sufficiency, although she claimed to us that the edits had not caused any 

delays.58 

Finally, in a footnote on page 3 of its response, OJP stated that the 

OIG flowchart depicting the claims review process (Figure 1 on pages 11 

and 12 of this report) “appears to miss whole steps.” The OJP response 

provides as an example of an omitted step, stating that the box 

representing the pathologist review does not contain a full and complete 

explanation of the reasons for the pathologist’s review. The OJP 

comment misconstrued the purpose of a flowchart, which is to present a 

process in a succinct graphic form. A complete description of the role of 

the pathologist appears in Table 5 in Appendix 5, Staffing for the PSOB 

Program. 

OJP’S CLAIMS OF FACTUAL INACCURACIES 

The OJP response listed nine statements or references in the OIG 

draft report that it believes were mistaken or incomplete. We address 

each of the nine matters below. 

1. Summary of OJP’s Statement: OJP stated that the OIG draft 

report’s description of the October 2, 2007, Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA) policy memorandum as indicating that any response to an 

emergency call should be considered nonroutine is an inaccurate 

description. According to OJP, “the policy memorandum creates a 

rebuttable presumption, specifically by providing that ‘[r]esponding to an 

emergency call shall presumptively be treated as nonroutine.’" 

OIG Response: The OIG report provided a plain language 

description of the meaning of the memorandum. However, to address 

OJP’s point, we have added a footnote to explain, in legal terms, that OJP 

considered the direction provided by the memorandum that “responding 

to an emergency call shall presumptively be treated as nonroutine” as a 

“rebuttable presumption.” 

2. Summary of OJP’s Statement: OJP questioned the accuracy of 

the OIG draft report’s statement that “great physical exertion [i]s required 

 58 In its response, OJP stated that the Deputy General Counsel’s comments 

during the interview pertained to direction she gave the attorneys “literally years” before 

OJP began processing Hometown Heroes Act claims in September 2006. However, our 

August 2007 discussion with the Deputy General Counsel was specifically related to 

OGC attorneys’ stylistic edits to the Hometown Heroes Act claims determinations in 

2007, and she did not indicate that she was referring to directions she had given years 

before the Act was implemented. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

85

by the regulations” because that exact term is not in the PSOB Program 

regulations. 

OIG Response: The OJP response is correct that the exact 

language does not appear in the PSOB Program regulations. Although 

we maintain that our paraphrasing provided an accurate description of 

the program requirements, to avoid confusion we changed the report to 

read, “did not involve ‘nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity’ 

as required by the regulations.” 

3. Summary of OJP’s Statement: OJP stated that “[o]n pages 1 - 

2, to the extent the bridge paragraph of the OIG Draft Report is intended 

to provide an accurate legal description of the HHA provisions, it is 

abbreviated and conflates several statutory requirements, and thus is 

inaccurate.” 

OIG Response: We reviewed our description of the Act on pages 1, 

2, and 3 of the Background section of this report and believe it provides 

an accurate, plain language description of the Act. 

4. Summary of OJP’s Statement: The OJP response stated that 

“the first sentence of the second full paragraph [on page 3 of] the OIG 

Draft Report is inaccurate” because the criteria discussed in that 

paragraph (“nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity” and 

“competent medical evidence to the contrary”) are not the only criteria for 

determining whether a claim would be eligible for compensation. 

OIG Response: The OIG report is clear that those are not the only 

two criteria. The full criteria are discussed immediately preceding the 

paragraph in question. However, the paragraph at issue (on page 3 of 

this report) focuses on OJP’s definition of the two specific terms that had 

raised congressional concerns after the Act’s implementation. 

5. Summary of OJP’s Statement: OJP stated that the OIG report 

definitions of “nonroutine stressful physical activity” and “nonroutine 

strenuous physical activity” on pages 5 and 6 do not match the language 

of the regulations and “to that extent are erroneous.” OJP also stated 

that the OIG’s definitions “may have been intended to incorporate 

notions that inform a BJA policy memorandum of October 2, 2007” 

regarding the interpretation of “nonroutine.” OJP stated the 

memorandum “does not purport to create a definition of nonroutine.” 

Instead, OJP stated, the memorandum “provides guidance on how to 

evaluate evidence relating to whether an activity may be nonroutine.” 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

86

OIG Response: The OIG report’s description of “nonroutine 

stressful and strenuous physical activity” is not a verbatim quote of the 

regulations and presents the regulatory language in plain terms. 

6. Summary of OJP’s Statement: The OJP response stated that 

the OIG report’s discussion (page 6) of OJP’s coordination with the 

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) to define the term “competent 

medical evidence to the contrary” is incomplete because OJP also 

“consulted extensively with other medical-, public safety-and vocational 

experts.” 

OIG Response: That information actually was presented on page 3 

of the report in the introductory paragraph of the section to which OJP 

referred. 

7. Summary of OJP’s Statement: The OJP response stated that 

the OIG report’s description of the “PSOB Program beneficiary hierarchy” 

in footnote 24 on page 8 and the citation for the Mychal Judge Act are 

incorrect. OJP stated that the Department of Justice Appropriations 

Authorization Act of 2005 amended the Mychal Judge Act provisions 

regarding the statutory order of death beneficiaries for the PSOB 

Program. 

OIG Response: We revised footnote 24 on page 8 of this report to 

reflect the changes made by the Department of Justice Appropriations 

Authorization Act of 2005 by adding “the individual designated as 

beneficiary by the public safety officer at their agency or organization” to 

the roster of beneficiaries. 

 

8. Summary of OJP’s Statement: The OJP response stated: “To 

the extent that the second paragraph on page 9 of the OIG Draft Report 

suggests that a claimant ‘has the opportunity to present new or 

additional evidence’ only ‘[d]uring a hearing,’ it is inaccurate. At each 

level of administrative appeal, the claimant has the opportunity to 

provide additional evidence and argument.” 

OIG Response: The OJP response misquotes the OIG report. We 

did not state that the claimant can “only” present new evidence to the 

hearing officer. Further, the section cited by OJP refers the reader to the 

full description of the appeal process found in Appendix III of this report. 

This appendix clearly states that claimants can present new evidence at 

each administrative level of the appeal process. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

87

9. Summary of OJP’s Statement: The OJP response noted that 

the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2008, signed 

into law on December 26, 2007, changed the court of jurisdiction for 

appeals beyond the administrative level from the U.S. Court of Federal 

Claims to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.59

OIG Response: We updated Appendix III of this report to reflect 

the new legislation. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Recommendation 1: The BJA should finalize the “Attorney 

General’s Guide to the Hometown Heroes Act.” 

Status: Resolved – Open 

 Summary of OJP’s Response: OJP agreed with this 

recommendation and stated that the BJA will work with the Department 

of Justice to finalize the “Attorney General’s Guide to the Hometown 

Heroes Act.” 

OIG Analysis: As discussed in the report, the BJA is in the final 

phase of editing the “Attorney General’s Guide to the Hometown Heroes 

Act.” Please provide the OIG with a copy of the final guide when 

published or a status report on the guide by June 30, 2008. 

Recommendation 2: The OJP OGC staff attorneys should use the 

PSOB Office case management system to record their case notes, 

requests for documentation, and other case-related communication with 

the PSOB Office. 

Status: Resolved – Open 

 Summary of OJP’s Response: OJP agreed with the 

recommendation and stated that the OGC attorneys and the PSOB Office 

will use the system when it is “sufficiently developed and operational.” 

OIG Analysis: By June 30, 2008, please provide the OIG with the 

status of OJP’s implementation of the new PSOB case management 

system and a copy of the guidance directing attorneys to use the system. 

 59 The OJP response acknowledged that 28 C.F.R. § 32.55(a), which was the 

source of the OIG’s report language, is no longer accurate and must be amended. 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

88

Recommendation 3: OJP OGC should establish more definitive 

performance timelines for attorneys’ reviews of PSOB claims to facilitate 

claims processing. 

Status: Resolved – Open 

 Summary of OJP’s Response: OJP agreed with this 

recommendation and stated that the PSOB Office will send a draft claim 

determination on the claim to OGC within 30 days of receipt of all 

necessary information and identification of all potential beneficiaries. 

OGC will complete its review and forward its recommendations to the 

PSOB Office for execution within 45 days of receipt of a complete PSOB 

claim. 

OIG Analysis: By June 30, 2008, please provide the OIG with the 

status of OJP’s implementation and tracking of performance under these 

standards.