An Act amending the act of June 24, 1976 (P.L.424, No.101), referred to as the Emergency and Law Enforcement Personnel Death Benefits Act, further providing for title of act; and adding provisions rel . . .ating to coroners.
House Bill 569 amends Pennsylvania’s Emergency and Law Enforcement Personnel Death Benefits Act to expand and clarify who is covered by the state death-benefit program. The bill adds coroners and medical examiners to the act’s title and operative provisions, defines “coroner” to include elected or appointed coroners, deputy coroners, and elected or appointed medical examiners, and states that coroners are covered when acting under the state coroner law. It also updates the act’s broad-construction clause so the law is expressly interpreted to grant benefits to coroners, alongside firefighters, ambulance and rescue squad members, law enforcement officers, and National Guard personnel.
The bill also expands the presumption of duty-related death for certain fatal heart attacks or strokes. Under the amended language, a firefighter, ambulance or rescue squad member, law enforcement officer, coroner, hazardous material response team member, Civil Air Patrol member, or National Guard member who suffers a fatal heart attack or stroke while on duty, or within 24 hours after a physical training exercise or emergency response, is presumed to have died in the performance of duty for purposes of the act. The bill retains the existing application process and the state-paid benefit structure, including the $100,000 lump sum and continuing monthly salary payments to eligible survivors, subject to offsets for workers’ compensation or pension/retirement benefits.
In practical terms, HB569 would broaden eligibility for Pennsylvania’s duty-death benefits and make it easier for certain public safety personnel and coroners’ families to qualify by strengthening statutory presumptions. It would affect the Commonwealth’s General Fund obligations by extending potential benefit payments to an additional class of covered officials and by preserving the monthly survivor payment framework already in place for covered deaths. The bill takes effect 60 days after enactment.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee. On March 25, 2025, the House Labor and Industry Committee reported the bill as committed by a 26-0 vote, indicating unanimous support among voting members at that stage. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader public disagreement.
Because the bill expands a death-benefit program and adds coroners/medical examiners to the covered occupations, the main policy questions are likely administrative and fiscal rather than ideological. Potential points of contention could include the cost of expanding benefits, the scope of the new coroner definition, and whether the heart-attack/stroke presumption should apply to the newly added categories and related personnel. However, the recorded vote shows no opposition in committee.
HB569 would amend the Emergency and Law Enforcement Personnel Death Benefits Act to expand statutory coverage to coroners and medical examiners, revise the act’s title, and add an explicit definition of “coroner.” It would also create a duty-death presumption for fatal heart attacks or strokes for several covered public safety roles, including coroners, hazardous material response team members, and Civil Air Patrol members. The bill preserves the existing $100,000 lump-sum benefit and ongoing monthly survivor payments, which are paid from the General Fund, thereby potentially increasing state expenditures and broadening the class of beneficiaries eligible for death benefits under Pennsylvania law.
The bill appears to have been viewed positively in the House Labor and Industry Committee, where it was reported as committed unanimously, 26-0. That vote suggests broad bipartisan support for extending death-benefit protections to coroners and clarifying coverage for other emergency and public safety personnel. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no evidence of formal opposition in the available record.
The main issues likely to draw scrutiny are the fiscal impact of expanding a General Fund benefit program and the breadth of the new coverage, especially the inclusion of coroners, deputy coroners, and medical examiners. Another possible point of discussion is the expanded presumption for fatal heart attacks and strokes, which could make claims easier to establish for certain personnel. In the available record, however, no member opposition is shown; the only recorded vote was unanimous committee approval.