AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 45-2-21, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO INCLUDE CERTAIN COUNTY ROAD EMPLOYEES AND MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORK EMPLOYEES, WHO ARE INJURED WHILE PERFORMING OFFICIAL DUTIES, AS COVERED INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS DISABILITY BENEFITS TRUST FUND; TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "COVERED INDIVIDUAL" UNDER THE FUND; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
House Bill 536 amends Mississippi Code Section 45-2-21 to expand the Law Enforcement Officers and Fire Fighters Disability Benefits Fund. Under current law, the fund covers law enforcement officers and firefighters, including volunteer firefighters; this bill would add certain county road employees and municipal public works employees when they are actively engaged in road and bridge maintenance and are injured while performing official duties. The bill also revises the statutory definition of “covered individual” to expressly include those employees, while excluding employees of independent contractors.
The bill preserves the existing benefit structure: the Attorney General’s office would pay a monthly disability benefit equal to 34% of the covered individual’s regular base salary at the time of injury, for up to 12 payments per injury, when the injury is caused by a single incident in the line of duty. The benefit remains supplemental to workers’ compensation and is limited so that total payments do not exceed the employee’s regular base salary. Chronic or repetitive injuries are still excluded, as are injuries tied to a penal violation by the employee or intentionally self-inflicted injuries. The bill also leaves in place the special fund structure, investment rules, and Attorney General administration of the fund.
In practical terms, the bill would broaden eligibility for disability benefits under state law to include a new category of public works and road maintenance workers who face job-related hazards similar to first responders. It would affect Section 45-2-21 of the Mississippi Code and potentially increase claims against the disability benefits fund, while also extending the same creditor protections to the newly covered employees’ benefit payments. The bill’s effective date is July 1, 2026.
The available context shows no recorded committee transcript, vote tally, or formal opposition, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate history. Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted expansion of benefits for public employees performing physically dangerous public-safety-related work. The absence of recorded votes or discussion suggests there is no documented controversy in the provided materials, though the fiscal impact of expanding eligibility could be a point of interest for appropriations review.
The main point of contention, if any, would likely be whether county road and municipal public works employees should be treated like law enforcement officers and firefighters for purposes of this disability fund, and whether the state should absorb any additional cost or administrative burden. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness and parity for workers injured while maintaining roads and bridges, while skeptics might focus on fund solvency, eligibility boundaries, and whether the expansion should be financed through the general fund or another mechanism.
HB536 would amend Section 45-2-21 of the Mississippi Code to expand the definition of “covered individual” under the Law Enforcement Officers and Fire Fighters Disability Benefits Fund to include certain county road employees and municipal public works employees. As a result, those workers would become eligible for the same line-of-duty disability payments currently available to law enforcement officers and firefighters, subject to the same limitations, exclusions, and creditor protections. The bill would also leave the Attorney General responsible for administering the fund and disbursing benefits, and it could increase the number of eligible claimants and the fund’s potential expenditures.
The bill appears generally supportive of public employees injured in the line of duty, with its caption and text indicating a benefit expansion rather than a restriction. However, there is no committee transcript or vote history provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendment, or opposition in the available record. The overall sentiment can therefore only be characterized as likely favorable to the affected workers, with any concerns centered on cost and administration rather than the underlying policy goal.
The likely point of contention is the scope of the expansion: whether county road employees and municipal public works employees should be included in a fund historically focused on law enforcement and fire services. Another possible concern is fiscal impact, since adding new categories of covered individuals could increase claims on the disability benefits fund and require additional appropriations or administrative resources. Supporters would likely argue that these workers perform hazardous public duties and deserve comparable protection, while opponents or fiscal watchdogs may question whether the fund can absorb the added liability and whether the state should broaden benefits without a dedicated funding source.