HB72 repeals and reenacts Missouri’s Line of Duty Compensation Act and makes related changes to workers’ compensation law. The bill creates a new or revised statutory framework for compensating survivors of certain public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty, including law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMTs, air ambulance personnel, flight crew members, parole and probation officers, correctional employees, park rangers, conservation officers, highway patrol officers, and other specified public safety roles. It defines covered personnel and circumstances of death, sets filing deadlines and claim requirements, establishes how the $25,000 death benefit is distributed among spouses, children, parents, or designated beneficiaries, and provides that the benefit is in addition to any pension, death benefit, or other compensation otherwise available.
The bill also creates the Line of Duty Compensation Fund in the state treasury, directs the state treasurer to administer it, and authorizes the Division of Workers’ Compensation to promulgate rules to administer claims. It bars subrogation by employers or workers’ compensation insurers, protects awards from attachment or garnishment, and provides administrative and judicial review procedures for disputed claims. In addition, HB72 amends section 287.250 to adjust how average weekly wages are calculated for workers’ compensation purposes, including a specific rule for volunteer firefighters and volunteer emergency services responders whose regular employment is affected by injury.
The bill’s impact on state law is to extend and update Missouri’s line-of-duty survivor benefit program and to modify workers’ compensation wage-calculation rules for certain first responders and volunteers. It also extends the sunset of the Line of Duty Compensation Act to twelve years after June 30, 2025, and includes an emergency clause for the reauthorization of section 287.243 so the benefit program does not lapse before the new expiration date. As a result, the bill affects the workers’ compensation chapter, state treasury fund administration, and the benefit rights of survivors of covered public safety officers.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill materials is supportive and protective of first responders and their families. The emergency clause language indicates a legislative concern that coverage should continue without interruption, suggesting the bill was framed as necessary to preserve public health, welfare, peace, and safety. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee opposition in the supplied materials.
The main points of contention that could arise from the text are the scope of who qualifies as a covered public safety officer, the interaction between the new benefit and existing workers’ compensation or pension systems, and the revised wage-calculation rules for temporary total disability and volunteer responders. The bill also limits payment to claims filed within one year and makes the benefit subject to appropriation, which could be relevant to claimants and administrators if funding is insufficient or eligibility is disputed.
HB72 amends Missouri workers’ compensation law by reenacting the Line of Duty Compensation Act, extending its sunset, and creating a dedicated state treasury fund to pay survivor claims. It expands and clarifies the categories of covered public safety personnel, sets benefit distribution rules, and preserves the award as supplemental to other death or pension benefits. The bill also changes average weekly wage calculations in section 287.250, including special treatment for volunteer firefighters and volunteer emergency services responders, which can affect temporary total disability, permanent disability, and death benefit calculations.
The overall sentiment appears favorable toward first responders and their survivors, with the bill presented as a continuation and protection of existing line-of-duty benefits rather than a controversial policy shift. The emergency clause signals urgency and a desire to avoid any lapse in coverage. Because no committee discussion or vote history was provided, there is no recorded evidence of opposition or divided sentiment in the supplied materials.
Potential contention centers on eligibility and administration: which occupations qualify as public safety officers, how deaths are determined to be in the line of duty, how claims are verified, and how the benefit interacts with other compensation systems. The bill’s appropriation-based funding and one-year filing deadline could also be points of concern for survivors, administrators, or fiscal watchdogs. The wage-calculation changes for volunteer responders may raise questions about fairness, cost, and how benefits are measured for part-time or volunteer service.