Taser Risk Management Perspectives League of Minn Cities 2005
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Risk Management Perspectives on CEDs l . • serving Minnesota cities Presentation to TASER® Use of Force, Risk Management and Legal Strategies Conference by Bill Everett, Associate Administrator League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Scottsdale, AZ December 13th, 2005 Professional Qualifications •“Recovering” peace officer •Trial lawyer defending cities/officers (and medical products) •Consultant/trainer •Risk Manager •Force Science Research Center Goals 1. Share our reasoning, as one govt risk management and insurance provider, for supporting use of the Taser. 2. Share information about officer injuries and officer safety – scope of the problems. The Interesting World a While Back A Time of Controversy No bad experiences in MN, but: •ACLU “death” claims •Sensational headlines, use on young/old •Noise in risk management community •Scientific resume Some tough questions Considerations “back then” •CEDs seemingly very helpful and popular •Interplay: Fear/analogs/lack of understanding •Worst case: Baby with the bathwater •At the legislature •At the city council Our Stakeholders and Audiences •Police agencies •City administrators and managers •Mayors and council members •Litigation defense attorneys •Loss control staff Our Charge To meet the risk management needs of Minnesota Cities. •Examine effectiveness •Examine safety •Provide scientifically based and defensible guidelines to minimize risks of use •Accessible to cops, mayors, council members Our Strategy •Research •Analyze •Wait Our Conclusion “Used properly, CEDs provide police officers with a safe and effective tool for controlling dangerous behavior and overcoming resistance…. CED use has resulted in a considerable reduction in arrest-related injuries to both officers and subjects.” Police Use of Conductive Energy Devices, LMCIT Risk Management Memo (Oct. 2005) Basis for Conclusions •Available pilot studies •Consistent declines in injuries to suspects & officers •Averting deadly force in some cases •Available published scientific and medical evidence •Debunking myths and urban legends •Attesting to safety Report available at www.lmnc.org The Sweet Spot Seeking to find the right balance (the “sweet spot”) where we are: •Spreading out the reduction in injuries – to both officers and subjects – to as broad a class of events as possible. •Anecdotal experience – officers are more willing to use CEDs than OC •Our message – use it instead of OC, but explain why •Not using the devices in cases where we will Risk Management “Used properly, CEDs provide police officers with a safe and effective tool…. What does “used properly” mean? •Used lawfully (MN=reas necessary) •Used in accordance with the lessons taught by responsible science. •If feasible, mitigate scientifically Risk Management “Used properly, CEDs provide police officers with a safe and effective tool…. Changing Gears Pilot studies categorically report reductions in officer injuries •Columbus, down 23.4% •Cincinnati, down 70% •Orange County, w/c claims down 50% How often do we get hurt by the bad guys? How does it compare with other injury risks? Figure 2. Distribution of Incurred Loss Costs by Job Class, 2003 to 2005 All Other 20% Public Works 26% Clerical office employees 5% Parks 6% Firefighters Police 26% Figure 4. Comparison of Incurred Loss Costs for Police Liability and Workers’ Compensation, 2000 to 2005 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 (6 Months) Liability Workers' Compensation Injury Analysis: 9 Analysis of claims by: Job Class Body Part Nature of Injury Cause of Injury Type of Injury Figure 6. Distribution of Incurred Loss Costs by Body Part for Police, 2003 to 2005 26.1 All Other Backs Arms Legs 20.8 23.1 30.0 Figure 7. Distribution of Incurred Loss Costs by Nature of Injury for Police, 2003 to 2005 All Other Contusion, crushing, bruised 3.9 6.3 Heart attack, myocardial infrct 7.6 Dislocation, fracture 7.4 Laceration, cut, puncture, scratc Sprains, strains 10.0 64.7 Figure 8. Distribution of Incurred Loss Costs by Cause of Injury for Police, 2003 to 2005 13.4 All Other 6.7 Presumption 11.8 Motor vehicle collision 19.9 Fall or slip injury Person in the act of a crime 23.5 24.6 Lifting/pushing/pulling 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 All of that is great, BUT… It’s not very useful for loss control purposes in it’s current form. Response to problem Æ more research! In-depth analysis of injuries by ACTIVITY police officer was engaged in at the time of injury. On-going research at LMCIT… In-depth analysis of 330 lost-time claims (census) and 291 medical-only claims (sample). Research question: “What activity was the police officer engaged in at the time of injury?” Grouped claims according to a predetermined list of 15 activities which police officers typically engage in. Figure 11. Distribution of Incurred Loss Costs by Claim Classification, 2002 to 2004 (N=1,548) Med-Only Claims (n=1,218) 10% Lost-Time Claims (n=330) 90% Figure 12. Distribution of Incurred Loss Costs by Activity for Lost-Time Injuries, 2002 to 2004 (N=330) Everything Else 23% Medical Assist 9% Foot Pursuit 17% Use of Force Confrontation 16% Other 11% Motor Vehicle -Non- Training Activities 1. Profile of Foot Pursuit Claims: 2002 to 2004 Number of Claims: 41 Percent of Total Claims: 12.4% Incurred Loss Costs: $1,366,810 Percent of Incurred Loss Costs: 17.2% Median: $6,609 2. Profile of Use of Force Confrontation Claims: 2002 to 2004 Number of Claims: 67 Percent of Total Claims: 20.3% Incurred Loss Costs: $1,241,000 Percent of Incurred Loss Costs: 15.6% Median: $6,373 3. Profile of Training Activities Claims: 2002 to 2004 Number of Claims: 43 Percent of Total Claims: 13.0% Incurred Loss Costs: $943,314 Percent of Incurred Loss Costs: 11.8% Median: $12,981 4. Profile of Motor Vehicle Accidents (Non-Emergency) Claims: 2002 to 2004 Number of Claims: 23 Percent of Total Claims: 7.0% Incurred Loss Costs: $917,507 Percent of Incurred Loss Costs: 11.5% Median: $18,688 5. Profile of Medical Assist Claims: 2002 to 2004 Number of Claims: 22 Percent of Total Claims: 6.7% Incurred Loss Costs: $723,999 Percent of Incurred Loss Costs: 9.1% Median: $25,855 What does all of this mean? Top 5 activities: Foot pursuit, Use of force confrontation, Training activities, Motor vehicle accidents (non-emergency), and Medical assist These injuries will cost LMCIT $5.2 million in incurred loss costs This figure does not include SCF at 26% Focusing on these 5 activitiesÆ65% of incurred loss costs. Bill Everett, Associate Administrator l . • serving Minnesota cities League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust www.lmnc.org Contact Information: beverett@lmnc.org 651-281-1216
