All right, good morning, everyone.

We are here for the continuation of phase one of the Benitas matter.

Uh it's Friday, March 6.

And the four particular personnel orders uh that we talked about yesterday are still in effect.

2025 169, 2025 uh 170, 2025-171, and 2025-172.

Uh we have divided this up as explained yesterday for purposes of uh use uh uh for uh uh witnesses as far as all the various exhibits, etc.

etc.

And uh that continues today, and uh we are here uh with the uh commissioners to my left Chrissy Fellow.

Christopher Snyder.

And we will ask then that the appearances be made here this morning by counsel.

Good morning, here and examiner assistant city attorney Catherine Hedley appearing on behalf of Chief Jeffrey Norman.

Thank you.

On behalf of Christopher Benitas, this is Ben Hitchcock Cross appearing with David Ferguson.

Uh before we continue, uh, I note that there was an order the last time uh sequestering the witnesses, and I understood that many of the witnesses were watching this uh remotely.

Uh and so if we could just have an instruction to anybody who may be watching this remotely, who may be called as a witness to uh stop that activity if that's going on at this time, I would appreciate that.

Well, I I said that our ordered that yesterday that they were not to uh watch uh channel 25 and uh uh or the witnesses or to discuss what testimony has been or would be with other witnesses that had come before them.

Uh that uh we were going going forward from that point.

Uh that continues today.

They are not to look at channel 25 to hear what other witnesses have uh testified to or about or discuss what their testimony would be, should be, or etc., except with counsel, and that shall be out of the purview of any other witness as well.

Uh and uh so I instruct you all.

If anyone uh would please make sure that their witnesses are aware of that.

I'd appreciate that very much.

Uh uh, and uh if they are watching uh channel 25 at this point, uh that is to cease immediately.

Thank you.

All right, you bet.

All right.

Uh is there anything else that we want to take up this morning before you call your next witness, Ms.

Hadley?

Just a brief uh correction for the record.

The I you said yesterday two times, and I believe you were referring to Wednesday, uh, March 4th, as opposed to Thursday, March 5th, just to make sure that the record was clear.

You said yesterday we did this, and yesterday we did that.

And I just wanted to make sure that everybody's aware that was on Wednesday, just for purposes of uh keeping a clean record.

All right, that's that's true.

We uh March 4th was our first uh birthday, and we had kind of an off day yesterday and the 5th, and today is the 6th of March, and we will uh continue on if necessary to the 18th of March for the next date.

Uh, should that uh be it become necessary under the circumstances of this case, and um uh we are prepared to go.

So you call your witness in.

Thank you, hearing examiner commissioners.

Good morning.

Um the chief would call uh Mr.

Christopher Benitas.

All right, Mr.

Benitas, you should stand, sir.

Sir you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So I help you guys in the matter now before this commission.

I do.

All right.

Uh have a seat.

Are you a witness in this case?

I'm talking about private citizen.

He's a private citizen.

Yes, yes.

Okay, because we have a sequestration order.

Okay.

All right.

State your full name for the record and spell your first and last name, please.

Uh Christopher Benitez, that's uh Christopher Conventional Spelling, C H R I S T O P H E R.

Benitas B as a boy, E N I T.

Easy.

All right.

Now I want you to speak up right uh into that microphone, please.

Uh, and get us nice nice and close and uh uh don't be bashful.

Oops.

Okay.

We'll have it checked out to you may want to have that checked.

Uh apparently there's some shortcuts.

Test test.

You guys hear me?

Yeah.

Sounds good to I think it I think it's okay, but uh let's okay.

Thank you very much, Mike.

All right, uh, go ahead and Ms.

Hadley.

Thank you.

And uh just for the record to be clear, I am calling Mr.

Benitas adversely.

I don't know if I made that clear before, um, but I just wanted to go ahead and start that.

Um good morning, Ms.

Bernitas.

Uh you are here for appealing four separate instances of discipline that the chief uh disciplined you for, correct?

Correct.

All right.

Um you were here on Wednesday when we had prior testimony from three different investigating sergeants and uh Captain Liam Looney from the Internal Affairs Division.

That is correct.

Okay.

Uh you would agree with me that uh you had never been directly supervised by Sergeant Riley.

That is correct.

You would agree with me that uh you have had no outside work fraterniz with Sergeant Riley.

If any, uh very minor where we didn't interact.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Uh you would agree with me similarly that Sergeant Diedric uh had never directly supervised you or worked with you?

Correct.

All right, same question as it relates to the fraternization outside of work.

Correct.

Okay.

Uh same question with Sergeant Cavazo.

She's never directly supervised you or worked with you?

No.

And same question with Sergeant Cavazos as it relates to uh whether you fraternize outside of work at all.

No.

Same question as it relates to Captain Liam Looney.

Did you ever directly supervise you?

No.

Did you ever have the occasion to work with him directly?

No.

Same question with Captain Liam or follow-up question with Captain Liam as it Captain Maliam Looney as it relates to fraternization outside of work hours.

No.

Okay.

You would also agree with me that an employer needs rules for its employees' conduct.

Is that correct?

I think that's important.

Okay.

Is it particularly important for paramilitary organizations like the Panwaki Police Department?

Yeah.

And then as they evolve.

Is that a yes?

Yes.

I think the orders are important.

Okay.

Um, it's fair that uh the Milwaukee Police Department expects its officers to follow orders that are they are given.

Depending if they're lawful.

I'll rephrase my question.

If a if a lawful order is given, you would expect a member of the Milwaukee Police Department to follow that order.

Uh I would expect it's such a broad um all right.

I'll I'll rephrase that question.

You were provided a lawful order as a Milwaukee police department member.

Are you to follow that order?

Yes or no?

I'm given a lawful order from the yes.

Thank you.

And that's particularly true in uh cases of emergencies.

In cases of what?

Emergencies.

Emergency situations, yes.

Okay.

That's also very true to ensure that there's adequate staffing uh for the uh Milwaukee police department during shifts.

Uh yes, it's important.

Sure.

And that's for important as health is, yes.

Sure.

And that's for officer safety.

Officer safety, yes.

Sure, and also for the community safety.

Sure.

All right.

Ensuring that laws are followed, things are being orderly.

Yes.

All right.

In fact, that's kind of what the Milwaukee Police Department is for.

Yeah, correct.

All right, good.

Taking a look at exhibit E1 for me, that's on your right side there.

Labeled in the top right corner there on that document.

You've seen this document before, correct?

Yes, I have.

And this is the Milwaukee Police Department Code of Conduct.

Yeah, this is it.

All right.

And you as uh when you were a sworn officer with Milwaukee Police Department, you were expected to have read, reviewed, and understood this code of conduct, correct?

Correct.

All right.

Do you think you do?

I do, yes.

Okay.

You don't think you know?

Well, it's a such a broad definition, and then you combined it with a dynamic position as a police officer.

There's a lot of factors that are individually taken into.

So it's such a broad category that I cannot specify in that sense.

Keep your voice up.

Sorry, sorry.

And directly into the mic too, because this is broadcast.

Sure.

Again, to be clear, my question, and if it wasn't clear, I'll I'll rephrase my question is you know this document.

Yes, I do.

Okay.

With respect to Rule 305, which is in this document on page uh Bates labeled 588.

That's gonna be in the lower right-hand corner there for you in the um black lettering.

Starts Benita's COM 00058.

You see that?

I do.

Okay.

On the bottom right corner there, rule 305 relating to guiding principle integrity, the 3.0 integrity.

It indicates that department members shall obey local ordinances and state and federal laws, whether on or off duty, and any violation of ordinances or laws in any jurisdiction shall be reported to the members supervisor as soon as practical.

Did I read that rule correctly?

It sounds pretty accurate to me.

Did I read the rule correctly?

Thank you.

All right.

You would agree with me that it is important to have Milwaukee police department officers follow local ordinances.

Correct.

The line of questioning on whether or not what his feelings are about the rules is really irrelevant here.

As far as I understand, we're here at this phase to understand whether or not he violated any work rules.

His feelings on those work rules are irrelevant.

May I be heard?

Please.

First and foremost as the verb.

Secondly, and what I would just like to go ahead and point out there is this is directly related to a particular uh just cause factor as it relates to phase one.

I'll overrule the objection.

He said he knew the knew these things uh in in the exhibit one e1 and and uh contextually I will let her explore that because uh she is called adversely.

Go ahead.

You'd agree with me that it's important for officers of the Milwaukee police department to follow ordinances, local ordinances, state laws, and federal laws.

All department department members, yes.

All department members, yeah.

Okay, yeah.

And it's reasonable to expect all department members to follow these laws.

Same objections I don't excuse me, sir.

Just for a second, whether whether he feels the reason the rules are reasonable is not a question here.

Whether he had notice of the rules, okay, but whether or not he believes that these rules are reasonable, that's not uh that's for you to determine.

That's the uh as the commission.

That's not for uh him to admit here as a as a uh as if he's arguing his case.

So that's it's an improper question for that reason.

It's directly related to 6250 17 B factor um two, whether the rule Mr.

Benita's allegedly violated is reasonable, and factor one, which is specifically related to whether Mr.

Benita's reasonably could have known the probable consequences of his alleged conduct.

I'll let her explore that.

He's being called adversely, so she has a lot of latitude.

Uh and he says he knows the rules and and their applicability.

I'll let her explore that.

Thank you.

Go on.

Was that a yes to my question?

Uh, could you repeat it?

Madam Court Reporter.

Is it reasonable to expect all department members to follow these laws?

No, I don't believe so.

So just to be clear, it's not reasonable to expect a Milwaukee police department officer.

It's not reasonable for the Milwaukee police department to expect its officers to follow local ordinances.

Objection, he said all right, correct.

You said I think he's answered the question.

Go ahead.

Such as littering.

There was no question pending, Mr.

Benito.

Okay.

Hi.

I'm gonna go ahead and ask you to turn your attention now to uh Benita's uh COM 000587.

That's a Bates label number.

It's gonna be again in exhibit E1, referencing guiding principle one.

I'm gonna start core value one competence.

Guiding principle 106, which specifically indicates all department members shall report to do for duty at the time designated by their supervisors.

I'm sorry, what were those codes again?

Sure.

It's gonna be core value one for competence, referencing guiding principle one point zero six.

I'm on Bates label page 587.

Are you there?

I'm there.

Okay.

So I'll indicate to you that it reads all department members shall report for duty at the time designated by their supervisors.

Did I read that correctly?

You read that correctly.

All right.

Do you understand this uh rule to be a uh reasonable expectation for Milwaukee police department officers?

In all circumstances, I don't so it's not reasonable in your opinion to have officers report for duty at the time designated by their supervisors.

In all circumstances, I don't see that as something go ahead.

Sure.

In all circumstances, I don't see that as a general statement.

I can't generalize and in every situation.

I have to go by individual situations.

That's just the way I am.

Okay, just to be clear.

Your testimony before the commissioners today is that it's unreasonable for the Milwaukee police department to have a code of conduct for all of its members because each case needs to be taken individually.

Because there's so many specifications to everyone's life, it's all and there are reasons that are unreasonable to expect someone to report to duty if they can't.

I understand.

So again, is it unreasonable for the Milwaukee police department to expect its members to report on time?

Objection has to be answered.

Overruled.

That if we punished everyone that was late for the Milwaukee Police Department, we'd have no Milwaukee Police Department.

That wasn't my question.

From my personal experience, I don't think it's unreasonable.

No, I don't because I know how hard the Milwaukee Police Department officers work.

And if they're late five, 10 minutes, I don't think it's unreasonable because it's expected because they're their 16 hour shifts.

So no, I don't think that's reasonable.

Okay.

Want to turn your attention now to rule 503.

It's going to be referencing core value five, which is respect.

And I'm going to focus you.

That's on page 590.

Bates labeled page 590 in exhibit A E, rather E as an elephant one.

And that specific 50.

Nope.

You're already there.

All right.

501.

Got it.

503, sir.

That indicates that members shall promptly obey any proper or lawful order emanating from any officer of higher rank, any improper or unlawful order.

Should we be reported to a supervisor of higher rank?

And that's again core value respect, guiding principle 503.

Did I read that correctly, sir?

You did read that correctly.

Okay, thank you.

Again, same set of questions here.

Is it reasonable to have Milwaukee police department officers?

Is it reasonable for the Milwaukee police department to expect its members, its officers to follow lawful orders?

Yes, I do believe that.

Okay.

And you're also familiar that the Milwaukee Police Department has a set of standard operating procedures.

The SOP, yes.

And it's not just a SOP, there's a set of them.

Yes.

All right.

And you, when you were employed as Milwaukee Police Department officer, you occasionally were uh provided updates to the uh SOPs.

Occasionally, yes.

And you were expected to review them, read them, and understand them?

Yes.

And then you have to sign off on that indicating that you did read review and understand um any changes to a standard operating procedure.

Also known as a topic acknowledgement.

Yeah, we've done topic acknowledgments, correct?

Okay.

Are you familiar generally with the uh absence policy?

That's gonna be SOP 1010.

Familiar with it.

I have some familiarity with it.

Okay, cool.

I'll turn your attention to exhibit E3.

E as an elephant three, as in trace.

Yeah, I was gonna say you're in the wrong section.

Oh my god.

Oh, D3.

E3, elephant three.

I'm gonna ask you to turn to what's noted on the top right-hand corner of that document, page 29 of 31.

I'd ask you to turn to page 29 of 31.

Let me know when you're there.

On page 20 uh 29 to 31.

Yes, and exhibit E3.

Hearing okay, proceed.

Okay.115 absent without leave.

And I know that we have had much testimony about this from our uh test uh our people who testified on Wednesday.

Um were you provided a document substantially similar to this document with a substantially similar, if not identical, rule uh throughout your tenure with the Milwaukee Police Department?

Something of this, yes.

Okay, and you would agree with me that it's reasonable for a uh employer to have a policy regarding whether it uh an employee is absent without leave.

Generally speaking.

A guideline, yes, a rule.

Yes, yeah, you would agree with me that that's reasonable.

It's reasonable, yes.

Okay, great, thank you.

All right, you would also agree with me that if a member could not come to work, that they should apply for benefits that they would allow them to be off of work.

That would be helpful.

Sure.

So if an individual had sick time to use a sick time bank, or injury on duty.

So that's my my question is sick time.

Is that reasonable to use?

I think it's yeah, all options should be out there.

Injury on duty, unpaid time, and yes, okay.

You so you also agree with me that it's reasonable for uh employer to expect an employee to call in if they're not intending to appear at work.

If capable and able as practical and soon as they can.

So if they're sick and they're unable to call in, I don't think it's you know, obviously they're not gonna call in if they're not capable.

So I think it's reasonable for healthy or uh a sick person if he's sick, just sick to call in, yes.

So it's reasonable for a person who is going to be off of work to call in and indicate to their employer that they will not be.

Well, awful work is a broad statement.

Um work includes that maybe he's a regular off, or he doesn't know he's off or on, or if he's sick, or if he's injured, or if he's incapacitated.

So I'm just having a trouble with the specific wording of your question.

Sure.

I will rephrase it to better your answer.

Thank you.

It is reasonable for an employee to call in if they are going to be off of a regularly signed shift.

Regularly signed shift as long as they're capable and able.

All right.

Um we'll take that answer.

Put that down.

So I'm gonna try to take these and bite size increments because I know for the commissioners that there's a lot of information, and for you and I, it's also a lot of information going on here.

So I recognize that there is a lot, and I will try to take this as a spite-sized piece as I can.

You were provided with uh a PI21 notice for uh the allegations in IAS file 2024 0068.

I'm gonna call that case A.

Are you familiar with me calling it case A?

Um purposes of this uh appeal.

Yeah, that would be the first case, correct and timeline.

The first case that was called here uh on Wednesday with Sergeant Riley testifying.

So you recall receiving a PI21 notice in that um matter.

I recall getting a PI21, yes.

Okay, and when you say getting a PI21, are you referring to a particular the actual interview itself or the actual notice?

I believe I got a notice.

Okay.

Do you recall the actual interview itself?

No, not uh vaguely.

Okay.

Do you recall when uh well you'll agree with me that you uh engage in that PI21 interview in December 2024?

I'll take your word for it.

I don't think you uh I think your time is accurate.

Okay.

Um with respect to case B, I'm gonna call that the 2023 A wall charges that uh uh Sergeant Diedrich testified to.

Um you recall have it being served a PI21 notice for that.

I don't recall being served a PI21 notice, but I assume if I signed it that I was so if that's on the record, then yes.

All right.

Would you like to see it?

No, I don't need to.

Okay.

Do you recall sitting for that PI 21 interview?

I recall having an interview, yes.

Okay.

And do you recall uh when that was?

I don't recall the uh time frame.

No, um, if I told you that was March 19th, would you dispute that?

A 2025, would you dispute that?

No.

Okay.

Same question as it relates to case C as in CAT.

Um, I'm gonna call that the 2024 AWOL allegations that Sergeant Diedrich testified to on Wednesday.

Do you recall receiving and having a PI21 interview for that matter?

Yes.

That was the same day as the 2023 AWAL.

I think there was.

I think there was a yeah, I think it was combined.

Yeah, it was combined.

Okay, so that was still again in March of 2008 25?

I believe so.

Okay.

And then for the last, I'm gonna call it uh case D that Sergeant Cavassos testified to on Wednesday, um, the 2025 AWOL called it kind of interchangeably.

You recall receiving that PI21 notice?

Receiving the PI21 notice.

I do not recall receiving it, but I assume that I was served at or there was some sort of phone conversation to uh be available to receive it.

Okay, do you recall having to be served in the Waukesha County courthouse?

I was called beforehand, I believe, and there was a conversation about the appointments, and then um Sergeant Riley and uh maybe it was uh Sergeant Diedrich possibly.

I can't recall the other person, did serve me at uh Waukeshaw County Courthouse.

So that's a yes, yes, all right, and then uh you wound up sitting for that interview in May of 2025.

That sounds correct.

Okay.

And during each of those PI-21 interviews with Sergeant Riley, with Sergeant Diedrick, with Sergeant Cavassos, you indicated or at least hinted at the fact that you were involved in an on-duty accident.

Do you recall that?

I do.

And do you recall indicating to um those uh in interviewing sergeants that you received a TBI or traumatic brain injury TBI from the on-duty accident?

One illness, yes.

One diagnosis, yes.

I do recall speaking of that, yeah.

Okay.

Do you also recall indicating to those investigating sergeants that uh especially particularly not for Sergeant Riley's case dealing with the uh 305 DV charge, but rather the AWAL in the AWAL investigations from the Sergeant Diedrich and Sergeant Cavasos?

Do you recall indicating to Sergeant Diedrich that you were calling off on duty injury?

I don't recall um the specific details, but I do recall that I did mention uh on duty injury during one of my uh PI21s, and I would assume you're referring to that.

Okay, I'm gonna direct your attention to exhibit B as in boy two.

Are you there?

I'm here.

Okay, great.

Can you please turn to what's Bates labeled page number 15?

That's one five.

It's gonna be almost the last page of that staple document.

All right.

All right, I'm here.

Okay.

I'm gonna direct your attention then to that center almost center paragraph, which begins that Officer Benita's stated that on December 10, 2023, he called into work with an ODI.

Did I read that correctly?

Yes, it did.

Okay.

So re-asking a question.

Does that refresh your recollection at all as to you identifying to Sergeant Diedrich that you were using ODI?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna turn your attention to the preceding page that's Bates labeled page 14.

It's a seventh of ninth in that particular summary report.

Let me know when you're there, please.

On the 14th, you said on the page 14, yeah.

Okay.

Uh which summary?

On the same page that you had?

Yeah.

We're oh, which paragraph?

Is that what you're asking me?

Yes, sir.

Okay, sorry.

Just wanted to make sure.

Okay.

I'm gonna turn your attention to that third or second full paragraph, which begins with Officer Benita's stated an IME determined he was injured and that he could work in a limited duty capacity.

However, the IME did not explain what he should do if he was in intense pain.

However, his personal doctor doctor determined that he could not work due to an ODI.

Officer Benita stated there were days he was unfit to work in limited duty capacity.

Officer Benita stated he believed his doctor had better knowledge of his medical status.

Do you recall giving that testimony to or recall providing that information to uh Sergeant Dietrich?

Yes, um, regarding my flare-ups from the injury.

Okay.

Um do you recall being told that you could no longer call in ODI in uh 2023?

But I didn't feel that was um a proper order due to because this injury did happen at work, and a lot of previous injuries happened at work that I missed time for, so I didn't feel that was a proper order.

Okay, so I wanted to correct the record and let her know this was stemming from an incident uh that it was injured on the job.

Sure.

Um again, is is that a is that a yes to my question?

You were provided notice that you could no longer call an ODI.

I was given that notice.

Okay, thank you.

Um now I want to turn your attention to you can put that down.

I'm gonna be done asking you questions.

I just wanted to make sure the record was clear that you remember giving that testimony.

Um so let's go ahead and talk about uh the incident as you just called it in May of 2022.

Do you recall being on duty on uh May 14, 2022?

I do.

Right.

You were day shift, correct?

Or I'm sorry, early shift, early shift, correct?

I was on early shift.

All right.

And during that early shift, uh you allegedly sustained uh injuries, correct?

I did sustain injuries.

You sustained injuries during that time period.

And I believe you've previously indicated you were in an auto accident.

Is that correct?

Uh yes.

That's the terminology you use in auto accident.

Well, in order for me to have gotten hurt.

Oh, I'm sorry, Matt.

No, that's right.

Yeah.

Yes, my answer is I was an auto accident.

Okay.

Which I would define as two vehicles or an operator that couldn't control the vehicle.

You define an auto accident as two vehicles or an operator who cannot control the vehicle.

Well, car crash, correct.

A car crash.

Okay.

Different.

If you're driving an auto and you make an accident, you can crash on your own.

And uh you were uh on duty at the time?

I was of this particular accident?

Correct.

All right.

Um what uh and the the lights and sirens were activated at the time?

Yes, we were operating emergency capacity.

Operating emergency capacity, okay.

Thank you.

All right.

And there was body cam footage from this and dash cam footage from this.

Yes.

I'll draw your attention to the screen, please.

That's over here on my left.

I'll indicate that this is the footage that was submitted as exhibit E12, E12.

It's entitled Dash Cam footage from the day of Officer Benita's accident.

Do you recall uh providing this footage to the commission for today's hearing?

Uh I do.

Okay.

I'm going to begin playing it with everybody's permission at uh 30 because otherwise it's just sitting here for 30 seconds.

Council, do you have any issue with that?

Thank you.

Yeah, right now.

I didn't see it on the white charge.

We're at three.

Not the glorious injury.

Is there a question pinning?

Yes.

You were the passenger of the automobile automobile that day?

Yes.

All right.

And the accident that you're referring to is uh about the middle of that video that we watched where there was a hard stop.

Yes.

Right.

There was no collision between the vehicle that you were the passenger in another vehicle, correct?

Well, I defined an accent as something.

I will rephrase my I will rephrase my question.

There was no collision between your automobile that you were a passenger in and another vehicle, correct?

There was no car crash.

There was no collision, correct?

Car crash.

There was no collision, correct?

Correctional.

And answer.

He doesn't like.

Collision, not accident.

Yes.

There was no your vehicle that you were in did not strike another vehicle.

Is that correct?

Correct.

All right, thank you.

The vehicle that you were traveling in did not strike an uh a non-moving object, correct?

Due to the emergency break, yes.

Louder.

Due to the implied direct stop, yes.

Due to the driver of the vehicle stepping on the break.

Yes, the stop.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh the vehicle that you were the passenger in did not strike a human being.

No.

Outside of the vehicle.

The the vehicle that you were the passenger in did not strike an animal.

No.

All right.

Now sorry.

Um outside the vehicle.

That's what I said, sir.

Outside.

Okay.

Yes.

Not in inside was a different story.

He's giving his answer.

Wait.

And it should be doesn't need your thanks while he's giving his answer.

And it should be noted.

That the Consul.

Sorry.

Just ask the questions.

He gives the answer.

Speak right up.

Let's go.

Okay.

Now from that uh May 22 2000 May 2022 incident.

Um you applied for workers' compensation benefits.

Correct.

I had a turning because I couldn't process too much at that time.

Um and I trusted them to represent me.

I think it was uh Chris McGillis and Weemer.

Chris McGillis Weemer team.

So I don't recall those at that time.

I don't recall a lot of um memories.

I had amnesia partially okay, Mr.

Benitas.

You hired the Miguel Swimer law firm to seek workers' compensation benefits on your behalf.

Is that correct?

Yes, I think that's right.

Thank you.

And for a period of time from May from the end of May of uh 2000, and I well hang on, we'll switch that.

I'll draw your attention now to your exhibits, specifically exhibits E17, which for the commissioners is the rubber band bound um group of exhibits.

E is gonna be on your right, sir.

Right command.

Okay, that's gonna be E17.

Um and for the commissioners, I will note and for the record I will note that um this is a large series of exhibits.

I anticipate council will be using these in great detail in the future.

However, I want to use it just for the first couple of pages, so you don't have to go that far for my questioning at the moment in time.

So I will ask you, Mr.

Benitas, to take a look, and I will indicate to you that this is four sheets of paper on one printed off on one piece of paper.

Does that look correct to you, sir?

I agree with this.

Okay, thank you.

So based upon these first and uh in from my reading of this, it goes the per first page is on the upper left, and then it goes to the upper right, and then it goes to the lower left and then to the lower right.

Does that read true to you?

Left, right, lower left, lower right.

Is that what you stated?

Yes, sir.

Then I do agree with that.

Perfect.

So this particular memorandum that I'm looking at, the upper two pages on the left and the right of E17 is a document dated June 1st, 2022 from you, officer, then Officer Christopher Benitas to James Campbell, who is a captain of police at that time.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

All right, and it's documenting and summarizing what you believe happened on May 14th, 2022 that we just watched on the body on the dash cam footage.

Um, what I could recall at that time, yes.

Okay, and then you will agree with me that the third page in this exhibit E17 is a memorandum dated May 5th, 2022 from P.O.

Matthew Anderson, police officer Matthew Anderson to Captain James Campbell, uh dated uh May 31st, 2022, correct?

Yeah, and Matthew Anderson was the officer who was driving the squad vehicle on May 14, 2022.

That was him.

Okay, I'll draw your attention to the second to last line in Officer Anderson's memorandum, which indicates that I did not physically see P.O.

Benitas hit his head due to operating the squad in emergency capacity.

I asked P.O.

Benitas if he wanted medical attention at the time for his complaint, and he stated no.

Did I read that correctly?

You read that correctly.

Okay, thank you.

Don't agree with that statement though.

I understand that you don't agree.

That's not my question.

So from this and from these sets of uh uh paperwork, uh uh the corresponding injury classification reports, the next two pages in E17, all of that uh was submitted uh on your behalf by the McGills Weimer law firm for worker compensation benefits to the best of your knowledge to the best of my knowledge.

Okay, thank you.

Could be do you recall receiving notice in November of 2024 that your workers' compensation benefits were denied?

No, I was pretty out of it.

Let's see.

In November, I'm sorry, October of 2024.

You were out of it in 2000 and October of 2024.

Yeah, so do you recall uh in October of 2024 receiving notice from the Corvell Corporation, that third party um overseer for uh workers' comp claims for the city of Milwaukee?

Do you recall receiving a notice from that uh from Corvell Corporation?

Multiple okay.

Do you recall indicating that your medical diagnoses from that work-related injury in fit in May of 2022 was a closed cranial trauma and questioned minor concussive injury?

Who is the physician treating at that time?

That would be a Dr.

Novum, N-O-V-O-M.

Uh, I didn't read that report.

So do you do you recall learning that uh Corvell indicated that it would not provide any uh that you were returned to work and you were released with uh maxical maximum medical improvement on August 14th, 2022?

That would be their opinion.

Okay, do you recall learning?

Do you recall learning that it was a pin that you were able to return to duty full-time and without restrictions in August of 2022?

No.

Okay.

Do you recall learning that based on the professional medical opinion of Dr.

Novum that you were being denied all and any and all liability after August of 2022?

No.

Do you recall learning in October of 2024 that no medical bills would that the that uh the city of Milwaukee mistakenly paid you all of your medical bills from May of 2022 through October of 2024?

And they would not be seeking reimbursement for those charges.

Sure.

Did you recall learning in October of 2024 that the city of Milwaukee paid all of your medical bills from May of 2022 through the date of this to the date of October 24 by a mistake?

But they were not going to seek reimbursement.

Um I don't know, you'd have to consult with my legal team at that time.

I don't recall the details of uh the workman's comp situation.

That's why I had uh legal representation representation for it.

Okay.

Do you recall learning that Corvell reserved the right to report you for filing a fraudulent workers' comp or workers' comp claim under the Wisconsin statutes?

I do recall something along that line.

Okay.

Do you recall that any and all medical bills should be submitted to your insurance post uh August of 2022 should be submitted to your group insurance carrier and not through workers' comp?

I don't recall that.

Do you recall that you were able to appeal that decision that you received in October of 2024?

As I said, I was not.

Um did you appeal that decision?

I wouldn't know.

I was not uh me personally, I believe I had a legal team.

So I I would well, I did have legal representation, so I'd assume that they would have uh handled it or spoke with me about it.

What year was that in October of 2024?

Yeah, I think they would have handled that.

I don't I don't remember having a personal contact with anyone from Corvell.

Turning to turning your attention now away from the uh uh the incident in May and subsequent uh events there from you would agree with me that you were arrested by the Muskego Police Department in March of 2024 for battery domestic violence.

Those were the uh charges, yes.

Okay.

Um you agree with me that you were charged by the Waukesha County uh district attorney's office for a disorderly conduct uh DV enhancement?

Eventually, yes.

Okay, and you would agree I said yes, that's what they charged me.

Okay, and you would agree with me that eventually that got pled down to a ticket?

No.

You that you agree with me that you were issued a citation for that?

No, you would agree with me that the ultimate outcome of that was the case, the criminal case was dismissed, and you received a citation.

I said no.

Okay, it's not a particular document in general.

Uh fall of 2000 and well, I'll start in 2023.

Were you ever approved for FMLA leave?

Uh, what was the dates?

In 2023.

2023.

I don't recall.

Do you recall the birth of your child in 2023?

Noah, yes.

But my like I said, my memory was so bad, I you didn't even thought he was born in 22.

So this was the state of mind I was in for a long time because of this injury.

Okay.

So I'll rephrase my question for you.

Do you recall receiving FMLA benefits for the birth of your child in 2023?

Yes.

You were approved for those, correct?

Yes, that's the only way I could get off.

Would you agree with me that you never applied for FMLA in November of 2023?

November, what was that date?

I'm sorry.

November of 2023.

I'm sorry.

Uh I never applied for FMLA.

I don't recall.

Um turning your attention to exhibit B2.

Again, that's B2 again.

B as in boy.

Got it.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I was speaking to her, so that way she was.

Oh, you got the B2?

I do.

Okay, great.

Just wanted to make sure.

I thought you were referring to me saying B2 again.

I just wanted to make sure.

So you had the document in front of you.

Um at any point in time, I'll ask you this.

Um the allegation that you were presented with during this particular investigation that Sergeant Diedrich conducted was uh with respect to not uh not reporting to work at your assigned time at 4 p.m.

And despite being aware that you do not have any available sick time.

Do you see that on the first page of exhibit B2?

That's gonna be Bates label uh page eight.

The allegation.

Yes, I'm on that page.

I see it.

Okay, so will you agree with me that that was the conversation that the the report that you had with um or rather the investigation that Sergeant Dietrich was uh performing?

That was uh part of it possible.

Okay.

Um would you agree with me that through the pendency of the PI21 interview with Sergeant Diedrick at that time, you never indicated that you applied for FMLA in November of 2023?

I don't recall if I applied or not.

If it was accepted, I don't recall.

Applied, possibly, but I can't recall.

Okay.

I'm gonna you can put down exhibit b two.

I'm gonna turn your attention now to exhibit B6 for me.

B is in boy, six as in six.

All right.

Okay.

Now this is gonna this is I will represent to you.

This is a series of emails or an exchange of emails back and forth between yourself, um, Misty Taylor, and a couple other individuals, namely Captain Teal, Lieutenant Saffold, and Nancy Baker, HRA Baker from the health department or from the health uh division.

Um you can go ahead fleef through those real quick just to see if you are correct.

Yes.

Okay.

So I'm gonna turn your attention now to um uh at this point in time uh in November 2024.

Were you on medical substantiation?

Uh I don't recall.

Okay.

I'll turn your attention to the um uh last page there on the second to last page, it's gonna be Bates label page 30.

Okay.

This is in response to you being uh out on the 13th of December 2023.

Do you see that?

Uh dates label 30.

Yes.

All right, let me get there.

What's gonna object to the extent that the document speaks for itself?

Bates label page 30, and I'm gonna rephrase my test we for my question is this is for December 10th, 2023.

Do you see that?

I'm kinda lost here.

You said Pates 30?

So you it's in the same exhibit in B6 or six, um, it's okay.

I'm gonna look at page 30.

It's second slash page.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Oh here.

All right.

And you agree with me that these are uh applications for sick leave that an uh that a member of the department can fill out um after they return to work, right?

You're uh and a member of the department's not expected to fill this out in advance, indicating that I'm intending to be sick on this day, right?

Uh yes, these are filled out afterwards, and that's reasonable.

Or at the appointment.

Yes.

What was that?

I again again, sir.

I mean you're looking, I'm sorry, you're looking at the wrong page.

I'm looking at um page 30.

Got you.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

This particular page, right?

You would agree with me is filled out uh uh, you know, after a member is actually sick, right?

Because if you can't predict, I'm gonna wake up with a stomach flu today, you know, you fill this out afterwards, right?

And that's reasonable.

Yes, that you should fill this out when you return to work.

When you turn to work and you indicate on here that you are attending to use sick time, right?

Um if they're allowing you to, yes.

All right, that's the the purpose of this page from your knowledge as being a sworn police officer for almost 10 years is to fill this out to utilize sick time.

If you're able to take it if they give you sick time, yes.

Okay.

If you have sick time accrued and can use it, yes.

Okay.

So and that's that first box and section two that's gonna be up there, and you can say, okay, I'm asking to take paid sick leave, code 243, comp time, code 266, holiday, vacation, whatever, correct?

Yes.

Okay, flex time, whatever that whatever that may be.

Um not on duty injury on here.

Right.

Paperwork.

Right.

I understand that.

That was that was my question.

My question is this is this is the time that you can, this is the document that you fill out when you want to take sick time after you personal time, yes.

Your personal time.

Sure.

Great.

Okay.

Um, my understanding of this is is that you refuse to sign this as it relates to your uh uh uh absence on December 12th, 10th, 2023.

Is that correct?

Uh I'm gonna refer to the records.

Okay.

Is that um indicating your name is at the top, indicating this is a document for you?

Yes.

All right.

Um, and uh this is a document signed by uh Sergeant George Simonson.

Correct.

Indicating that he received a phone call and you were returned to work on 1213, 2023.

Uh yes.

Okay.

And then we have a refuse to sign at the bottom indicated by a Sergeant Daniel Clifford.

Is that correct?

Correct.

All right.

Um, and I also have C there on the bottom left corner that your medical certification was not provided.

Is that correct?

Uh possibly.

Okay.

All right.

Um I'm gonna turn your attention now to the exhibits or to um the 2024 AWOL case, and that's gonna be case C basically.

All right, so for the commissioners, that's the case that I'm gonna be focused on now is case C.

All right.

What's the exhibit you're referring to now?

I'm not referring to a particular exhibit.

I'm just case C is the line of questioning that I'm going to go down now for the commissioners.

Can you uh agree with me that uh in uh for KC, you were asked to appear to work um several times throughout January of 2000 and 24.

Do you recall that allegation?

Can you repeat the dates?

Yeah, I certainly will.

So you recall uh being asked a series of questions and being accused of not reporting to work on January 2nd, 2024 and January 3rd, 2024.

Uh vinkly, yes.

Okay.

Do you recall indicating having several series of conversations with the medical section that either be Sergeant Taylor or Nancy Baker relating to uh set of time off that you're asking for?

Possibly, yes.

Okay, I will go ahead and turn your attention for me to exhibit C as in Cat 6.

Now I understand that this is now a series of emails being put together, but I'm gonna turn your attention when you have the document in front of you.

I know there's a lot of paper.

Uh just in different sequential order.

Oh, is it?

I'm sorry.

That's all right.

Correct.

Got it?

Yes, we're here.

So I'm gonna ask you to turn to Bates label page 172.

That's 172.

That's the beginning of the emails chain, right?

So this is the first email chain that we have in exhibit C6, ends in January 2024 on the 12th.

But I want to go ahead and start it at the beginning so that way we have you know a correct chronological order.

Does that make sense?

I do.

Okay, do you have it in front of you?

I do.

It's over here on my left.

Okay, cool.

So you reached out to the medical section, and just to be clear, um, your email when you were employed with the Milwaukee police department is C-A-B-E-N-I at Milwaukee.gov.

That is my email address.

Yeah, that was your work email address.

Okay.

And uh did you have a personal email address, a personal rather email address that you occasionally use while I'm discussing with the medical department, medical division?

Uh I might have by mistake.

Uh just through the phone.

No, that's okay.

I mean, what what would be your personal email address that you would have otherwise used?

Do you recall?

I don't recall.

Okay, we can get to that in a second.

Don't worry about it.

All right.

So with respect, I'm again, I'm on page 172.

And December 7th, 2023, you asked for FMLA paperwork that you would need for an on duty for a duty to uh, I'm sorry, an absence due to injury self.

And there's federal regulations that you wanted to use, right?

Does that make sense?

The federal, yes.

Okay.

And Sergeant Taylor responded to you a couple days later on December 11th and indicated that she was off on Thursday and Friday, and that HR Bait HRA Baker forward you necessary paperwork on December 7th at 2 1252 p.m.

Is that correct?

I see that email chain correct.

Okay.

And then you agreed and you replied to Sergeant Taylor indicating that you, in fact, were provided paperwork that very same day.

I'm on page 171 now.

So again, on Wednesday, December 13th at 2023 at 820 p.m.

You indicated that you had received paperwork and you had supplied to the uh health of health division or the safety and health office, the PM6E memo and the absence.

I do, yes.

Okay.

All right.

And you also indicated that you're going to provide the FMLA notice and the notice of rights uh when you get that within the 15 days.

Does that make is that correct?

Uh if able, yes.

That's why I implied that I would get it to her.

Right.

So you indicated that you would provide the necessary paperwork for the FMLA substantiation?

Yes.

Okay.

On two on December 14th, you got a reply directly from Mr.

Taylor from Sergeant Taylor, and she indicated on there that you and her had a conversation on the phone regarding your medical regarding your uh uh uh put request to take leave of absence, right?

Okay, is that correct?

Possibly okay, and in that conversation, Sergeant Taylor indicated to you that there was a difference between FMLA and taking FMLA and using a medical leave of absence.

Do you recall that conversation?

No.

Okay.

Do you recall HR HRA Baker in reiterating to you that you had the FMLA paperwork in your possession that you could supply it?

No.

Okay.

Do you recall asking for three blocks of time from FMLA?

The first being from December 10th, 2023 through December 17th, 2023 for your own serious health condition.

Uh possibly.

Okay.

Do you recall requesting a second block of time from December 19th, 2023 through December 29th, 2003 for your child?

Yes.

And do you recall uh asking for a third block of time from January 1st of 2023?

And so I'm presuming uh I'm presuming that means January 1st, 2024, although we all know how dates go in December and January and missing those things up to January 11th, 2024 for your own serious health condition.

This is what the email I was allowed to take, yes.

This is what you were requesting to take.

This is what I was allowed to take.

This is what you were allowed to take, is your answer?

Yeah, my own my serious health conditions was the injury on duty.

Okay, understood that.

That's what I remember at the time.

Okay, I understand.

Thank you.

So based upon that, you were indicated that you had to provide medical substantiation for your own serious health conditions for the uh necessary times for your own uh serious for for the time periods that you wanted to take for your own injury.

Uh yes, I had to compensate IOD injury.

Um that I couldn't make it to work and use my own personal time due to a work injury, I had to use my own personal time.

The child for the child, that was probably for the child, but the um serious health conditions, I can state that was actually because of my on-duty injuries.

Okay, that's you, and that's your position as you sit here today and you are I I understand that that's your position.

Yeah, okay.

That wasn't my question though.

Okay, go ahead.

My question was in order for you to use FMLA for the time periods of December 10th, 2023 through December 17th, 2023, as well as January 1st, 2024 through January 11th, 2024, you had to provide medical substantiation in accordance with the FMLA law and MPD regulations, FPD statutes.

I understood it.

Do you understand the question?

Yes, you're you're referring that I had to put in the parameters of the F uh of the federal guidelines and the policy of the Milwaukee police department, otherwise it wouldn't be accepted.

If I only succeeded in the parameters of the federal, and that was acceptable, it wouldn't be acceptable by the police standards, even though the federal standards is higher.

You're stating that the police standards would contradict the federal standards if it wasn't filled off to the MPD uh statute of regulations in their policies.

Is that what I'm understanding?

No, sir.

Okay.

And I don't understand your compound question.

Okay, then I will ask a simple question.

Sure.

For the time period of J of December 10th, 2023 through December 17th, 2024, for your own serious health condition, you were required to submit medical documents to the health and safety officer.

Yes.

Thank you.

For your for the use of FMLA time from January 1st, 2024 through January 11th, 2024, you were required to submit health information, specific information to the health and safety department for to use FMLA for your own serious health condition.

Which was my on duty injury, yes.

Mr.

Benitas.

Yes.

That a yes.

That's my answer was what I stated.

Do you recall indicating that do you recall being told that the med note that you provided to the health and safety officer to health and safety um division?

I'm sorry, let me get this correct.

The medical section of the Milwaukee Police Department was insufficient.

That's what they stated.

Often do you recall hearing that during the conversation on December 14th, 2023?

Not that particular time.

Okay.

Do you recall indicating to Sergeant Taylor that you had uh that it should be obvious that you have a TBI and that uh you should not have to provide such documentation?

I think uh assistance with uh filling out the paperwork would have been helpful.

Um but I think the medical paperwork could have been uh tasked to my legal representation team at the time and my doctor, and um that's what I was trying to indicate articulate at that time.

Okay, that I really do appreciate that answer, Mr.

Benitez, but it wasn't an answer to my question.

The and the my question was do you recall indicating to Sergeant Taylor that it should be obvious that you have a TBI and that you would provide and then uh ended the conversation?

I'm gonna refer to the uh emails here.

I do believe this is my email, so I have no reason to disregard what is said here.

Okay.

I'm gonna turn your attention now to the email chain and this continued the same exact email chain of which you are on.

I'm gonna ask you to turn it to page 169 for me.

That's 169 and exhibit C6.

All right.

I'll turn your attention to an email dated January Wednesday, January 3rd from Nancy Baker to you.

And it indicates that the medical section and about the one, two, three, fourth paragraph down, about a third of the way from the bottom of the page, then the medical section had not received FMLA certification for the second block of time, January 1 through January 11th, 2024.

Do you see that sentence?

I do, I see that.

Do you see your response that exact same day?

It's immediately above it.

Yes, I do.

And your response was okay, thanks.

I will get them ASAP.

Could you send me the paperwork needed from one 2004, 2024?

Yes.

Okay.

And did Sergeant and then Nancy Baker provide you that documentation immediately on January 3rd, 2024?

I have no reason to doubt Baker would have done that.

Okay.

Uh you had a decent relationship with Nancy Baker.

She helped me understand the paperwork a lot better.

Yeah, she was very responsive to you.

She was helpful.

Okay.

I will then turn your attention to the January 8th, 2024 email that is going to be from Sergeant Missy Taylor, which is going to be at the top of page 168.

I'm going to turn your attention to the second full paragraph on that page 168, wherein Sergeant Taylor indicated to you that you have not provided any medical certification from the third block of time that you requested from January 1st until January 11, 2024.

And that you had a conversation that you no longer needed a block of time and that you were going to apply for intermittent FMLA.

Do you see that?

I do.

Okay.

Do you recall that conversation that you had with Nancy Baker?

I don't recall that conversation.

Okay.

Speak up for you to the microphone now.

All right, sorry, sorry.

Okay.

I'm gonna move on now to case D, as in dog.

I'm gonna call that the 2025 AWOL matter.

You were here on Wednesday when council when your counsel is asking a series of questions to investigating Sergeant Cavassos, correct?

One second, please.

Sure.

Not as orderly as you.

Yeah, I understand.

All right, proceed.

Do you recall your counsel asking a series of questions to Sergeant Cavasos, who is the investigating sergeant to the 2025 AWAL incident?

Yes on Wednesday?

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Do you recall counsel indicating that you would be um incapacitated at the refuge, a place for healing in Florida from March of 2025 through May 2025 for a period of 60 days?

Those dates sound accurate.

Okay.

Commissioners, I'm gonna request that you um look at exhibit E17, which again is the rubber bound um uh pages of documents and same thing, Mr.

Banini, did you got it in front of you?

Again, I'm not gonna go too far deep into it.

I want you to go ahead and turn the page for me, and I want you to look at uh what is going to be the top right page on the on the back side of the front sheet.

Does that make sense?

Yep, perfect.

And I'm gonna direct your attention, please, to that top right page.

Am I to understand that these are and the corresponding uh documents that follow this particular uh page are documents from the refuge, a healing place, some uh in I'm not gonna pronounce that correctly in Florida.

It's uh just for the record, it's O C K L A W A H A.

Aqulawala Florida.

Uh yes, now all right.

So is are are these your medical records that you provided to the commission as in exhibit for the appeal here today?

Uh yes, possibly.

Yes, these are then.

These are the documents that you put okay, cool.

So I'm gonna go ahead and draw your attention immediately down to what's gonna be the fourth of four if we go one, two, three, four, um, left, right, left, right.

So I'm gonna turn your attention to the lower white, lower right quadrant of that document.

I see it.

I see I understand that to be a discharge summary from your time at the refuge healing place and Akalala, Florida.

Is that correct?

So uh my understanding from reading this document is the date you started at the refuge was in March, specifically March 25th, 2025.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

And the end date, meaning the last date that you were there was April 24th, 2025.

Is that correct?

The end dates was the 24th.

I don't know if I was discharged on the 25th.

Um, so sure.

Yeah.

Well, let's go ahead and go down to the last date of service, um, which is about a quarter or the you know, a third of the way up from the bottom of that page.

I read the last date of service as being April 23rd, 2025, and the end date of your level of care would be mar uh uh again, April 24th, 2025.

Okay, yes.

Did I read that correctly?

Yes.

Okay, just checking to make sure that we have that in there.

Um, do you have any reason to dispute the accuracy of the dates in which you were uh the dates that your records indicate that you were in patient for?

No.

Okay.

So turning to the allegations that uh were lodged against you in 2025 regarding your failure to appear at work.

Do you recall um do you recall receiving those allegations?

I do.

Okay.

Do you recall um?

I guess we'll start here.

Um you left and you were admitted in March of March 24th of 2025.

Do you recall what your last day of being at work and on duty was in March of 2025?

I do not.

Okay.

Do you have any reason to dispute that that was March 17th?

I'm sorry.

March 15th, 2025.

My last day at work?

Correct.

Was March 15th?

Correct.

Okay.

Um I don't recall, but I'll assume that could be correct, yes.

Okay.

Subsequent to March 15th.

Um, and we can go ahead and take a look at uh print off if that would be easier for you.

No, I'll understand right now.

Okay.

Umsequent to you uh to that last date of work on March 15th, 2025.

You took a series of off days, regularly scheduled off days, holidays, and sick time before heading to uh Florida and being admitted into the refuge, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um do you recall calling in sick on March 24th, 2025?

It was very chaotic time.

Um I believe I did.

I could have not, I don't recall.

Do you have any reason to dispute the time cards entries from uh the city of Milwaukee?

I do.

Okay, well then we won't use them then.

Let's go ahead and use let's start um in March 25th, 2025.

Okay.

Do you recall calling in sick on March 25th, 2025?

I believe I did to uh Sergeant Shulker, maybe I don't recall a sergeant.

I think it's Shulker Shulker.

Okay.

All right.

When's the last time you remember calling in sick?

Uh in March of 2025.

Uh right before uh entering to the refuge.

I told them I was gonna take uh uh and uh I reached out to medical section and I believe I sent an email to the captain and then called in for good insurance uh to the acting lieutenant or sergeant sergeant who was in the chair, which would be the acting lieutenant.

Okay, I understand.

So I will direct your attention now to exhibit D5, which I will submit to the commissioners is a set of documents that's uh clipped with a alligator clip and not a staple, it's rather rather voluminous, and I'll turn your attention now excuse me to page Bates label 447, that's 447 in exhibit D5 Absolutely Bates labeled page 447 and exhibit D5 you said 447, yeah.

All right, thank you.

Quite right.

I know there's a lot of paper here, and again the baits are in the bottom right.

I got all right.

No, you sent an email.

Uh again, that's from your uh work email address that's C A B E N I at Milwaukee.gov.

That is correct.

All right, and you sent that directly to Captain Teal and Nancy Baker requesting to leave uh the subject line is leave of absence.

Yes, and you reached out to indicate that you would not be turning to work momentarily due to your own illness, and you were informed that the paperwork was submitted to medical and have limited access to the device, which makes calling in difficult.

Did I read that correctly?

Correct.

Okay, great.

And then per uh Miss Baker's response on that next Monday, the 31st.

Yes, she indicated that they received a med note, but not FMLA certification, and the section has not received any FMLA paperwork, and per the SOP, you need to call into your work location every day when you are using sick time.

Did I read that correctly?

Uh yes, you did.

And you would agree with me that the SOP does indicate that if an officer has not approved for any leave that they do need to call in sick every day when they're regularly scheduled to come in.

I would not agree with you on that.

I believe that um my presence, like that I would not be in the work for unforeseeable time and not knowing how to fill out the paperwork should speak to that absence.

Okay, I understand that.

That wasn't my question.

Okay.

My question was you agree with me that the SOP indicates that you are to call in sick if you're not going to be there for your regular scheduled uh days of work.

I believe that's what the SOP would say.

Thank you.

All right.

Following that, Sergeant Taylor responded to indicate that um the medical section did not receive a med note, but instead is just a letter from Ellen Mendez, which indicates uh who's a case management supervisor and not a doctor, and that you have the necessary medical forms and have not as of April 1st, 2025, supplied them to the medical section.

Is that correct?

Uh is that uh 446 or are we on 447?

446, sir.

All right.

Yes.

Okay.

And then eventually your uh your case manager, Miss Mendez did provide information to um the medical section.

Is that correct?

I don't know.

Okay, let's go ahead and take a look now at um the next series of emails, and that's gonna be pages 448 through 453.

That's 453.

So that next section of emails, it looks like Miss Mendes beginning in uh March of 2025, asked for medical paperwork.

I will have the FMLA paperwork to you as soon as the medical provider has filled it out, is how she ended it.

Do you see that on page 448?

On 452, sir.

That's okay.

I do.

Okay.

So it's your understanding that Miss Mendez was working with the medical section to provide uh necessary paperwork and documentation.

Yes.

Okay.

I'm going to turn your attention now to what's Bates labeled pages four fifty-nine through four sixty two.

And that same um exhibit, exhibit D five.

Okay.

Okay.

Um the letter that was provided from the refuge indicated that the fr primary treating physician or the treating physician at that point and at your uh at the refuge was going to be an individual by the name of Scott Coombs, K U C U N C E.

He was an M D, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

The paperwork that's in your hand that's Bates that stamps uh received by medical on April third, two thousand twenty-five.

Um, did Dr.

Coons sign that medical substantiation?

Does it something signed by somebody?

What page?

Well, then the objection of the document speaks for itself.

Well, his doctor uh indicated that that's his opinion.

Uh, that I believe that he can answer a question whether or not he knew that.

Well, first you'd have to have the foundation to know if he'd never seen the doctor's signature and was aware of what the doctor's signature was.

I'll let him answer the question.

Thank you.

Did Dr.

Coons sign does the words Dr.

Scott Coons appear anywhere on page four sixty-two?

Sixty two.

Um, in fact, the signature uh indicating the healthcare provider is an individual name, La Tasha.

It looks like Carter Robinson.

That's who I recall talking to, not Scott Coons.

Okay.

And there's no indication that uh Carter Robinson is a physician.

I don't know her um her role.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Now you were ultimately informed that based upon the paperwork you had provided at that point in time that you were denied FMLA for uh the requested dates of March two thousand March uh twenty-fifth, two thousand and twenty-five through May twenty-fifth, two thousand twenty-five, correct?

That it was yes, you were dealing with there was some um medical paperwork that was denied.

Okay.

Um, did Sergeant Taylor ever tell you that you could not reapply?

To a certain uh limit, yes.

Did Doc did Sergeant Taylor ever directly tell you, Mr.

Benitez, you cannot reapply for FMLA?

I don't recall that conversation.

Okay.

Okay, let's stop there for a second.

Why don't you take a big uh break right now?

Take a 15-minute break.

Uh we'll be back here at uh ten twenty, please.

Okay.

And we'll go from there.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, everyone.

I don't think it's a violation unless it's locked.

Unless it's locked.

And also this live streams.

Yeah.

Okay.

So there's a request.

We're going to go back on the record now.

Let's do that.

So I've got a suggestion or a request from my colleague that we close the door but not lock it.

And I don't have any objection to that.

Is that okay?

Again, to be clear, not my suggestion or my request.

It was a question that I posed to counsel.

I have no problem with closing the door.

Great, and I'll close the door then.

One o'clock.

Thank you.

It's ten twenty.

And that being said, you may continue on with your adverse examination of Mr.

Benito's.

Do you recall indicating that you believe you should have been carried on administrative suspension with pay?

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

Sure.

So subsequent to your arrest in March of 2024 through the uh May of 2025.

My understanding is that you believe that you should have been carried administratively suspended with pay.

Is that correct?

I would have preferred that, and I made a request through a memo for that.

I didn't believe I should.

I requested it, and I know it's been accommodated before, and I thought it would help me as I was dealing with my mental health issues.

All right.

So as you sit here and testify today, you believe that would have been a medical accommodation.

I believe it would have helped me.

Yeah, and we the word that you use was accommodate.

So I'm just trying to make sure that I understand that correctly.

It would accommodate me in medically.

All right, to be administratively suspended.

As opposed to what I was uh having to do at that moment, which I was not very effective at and tasked to further questions.

All right, uh clarification.

Okay, sir.

Were you injured in the line of duty?

I was okay.

And approximately uh when was that?

Uh the physical injury was May 22nd.

Uh no, I'm sorry in May 2022.

Okay, can you describe uh for us how you were injured?

Uh it was uh in the line of duty, full uniform, actually in the capacity of an officer.

Um we were tasked to uh patrol the area of the deer district, and then we received a call on the radio.

I didn't want to feel we were needed, um, and then we went to that call on the route to that call.

Um there was a car that cut in front of us, the brakes were implied, uh, and then my head lifted up to the ceiling, striking it, and it should be noted that the uh chair in that particular unit squad car was lifted from the passenger side and unadjustable, and I believe that contributed directly to my injury quite a bit.

Can you explain a little bit more about the past the seat that you were in?

Were you in the passenger seat or something else?

I was in the passenger seat at the time.

Okay, and then uh maybe if you could just help the commission understand how it was that that seat was not able to be moved, if you know it was in a stationary positioning.

Uh typically um chairs have electrical devices where you can automatedly move it lower, back or anything.

This did not have that um accommodation, and I don't recall if you were I know you weren't able to adjust the heights, and I'm not certain about the um angle also if you were able to recline or go forward, so it gave my body and position a fixed um angle close to the ceiling where my head would almost touch it, so it was very uncomfortable, but that's what we had.

Do you know about how fast you were going uh when you struck the I do I have a body camera video I reviewed later on uh during my injury, and we went up to 50 miles an hour, and the last recorded um the breaks was approximately 30 miles an hour at that point uh according to the um body camera uh miles per hour recorded.

So at the time of break, it was approximately 30 miles an hour, maybe 28 to be exact.

And were you wearing the body camera on that day?

I was okay.

And uh have you had a chance to watch that video?

I did in the past.

Okay.

Um can we play that exhibit, which I believe is E13?

No, it's not E33.

What is it?

What is the exhibit, please?

That one.

Yeah, I see it.

So it sounds like I was correct, and it's E3.

I will fully admit it's a good thing.

This is both cross.

Great.

I'll keep that in mind for future reference.

Can we show you exhibit number?

It's 113.

It's E13.

Is an Edward or Echo?

Oh yeah, no, I know I don't know what I know anymore.

Okay.

Did you incur any injuries as a result of that?

Because this is still sharing.

Attorney Hitchcock Cross, thank you.

Make sure that our open meetings are act is correct.

Attorney Hitchcrack Cross.

Thank you for your patience.

I really genuinely appreciate it.

Keep that in mind, as I said.

Future reference.

So um Sir, would did you receive any injuries as a result of that collision?

I did.

Okay.

And what were those as you understood them?

Um there was um concussion or TBI and neurological issues to follow, but the immediate um symptoms were loss of consciousness, pain, uh numbness, and then just uh this disassociation.

Um and then to follow was chronic uh neck pain through the spine, and then uh some nerve, a lot of nerve pain through my lower um uh spine and uh arm tingling numbness, a lot of popping in the neck uncontrollably, lack of sleep, um sleep acne, I couldn't uh just and then uh some cognitive issues, memory, uh functionality, endurance, mental endurance, um what I believe to be amnesia, memory loss, and um some vomiting um spinal fluid at a left nostril, um which I didn't know immediately, but um that's what I um recall it being after swashing the unknown fluid, and then later on finding out what the description of spinal fluid is.

Um but those are some of them.

Did you ever seek any medical treatment for those injuries?

I did.

When did that happen?

Uh unfortunately it happened um later on.

I think it was May 22nd, or no, May 20th.

I don't know, a week or so after it.

I think the record can speak for the all right.

And other than examinations, what what kind of medical treatment did you receive?

Uh there was a lot of follow-ups, PT physical therapy.

Um, and then there was some uh acupuncture.

There was some uh mental processing, and then um, yeah, just a lot of PT, a lot of time off, and then actually followed up with a sleep doctor and found out that sleep is a huge um contributor to recovery, and there's a window after you get a concussion to maximize your uh potential recovery, and sleep is a primary uh need, and with the shift differentials, it was difficult to get that.

Okay.

Now uh are you back to the does your physical condition today where it was on uh prior uh let's say on June 1st, 2022, prior to the accident?

I don't believe so.

And why not?

Uh just because I still uh struggle with some mental endurance migraines uh that on occasion uh just control uh my functionality, my day uh planning disorganized uh most of the time.

So no, not where I was okay.

Have you been told that your uh let's say mental health condition was a result of the injury sustained on June 1st, 2022?

They often overlap from my personal experience and from all the help I received.

Um there is um a part where it becomes PTSD because you're stagnant and you're not participating in the uh the job, so you're not um kind of subconsciously suppressing so those can kind of contribute to the TBI because then it starts processing without your knowledge, well without my knowledge, I didn't have all this information right at the start gate, which I would wish I did, could have prevented a lot.

But yes, there was physical trauma, mental trauma, and it all kind of overlaps each other.

Okay, was there ever a time after the accident, the on duty accident that you were not able to work?

Yes, okay, when approximately was that time when I was not able to work, right?

I would say as soon as the accident happened, I should have like concussion protocol at the NFL.

Just you know, there should have been something done immediately.

Okay, and then uh, but was I'm gonna ask this similar question but a slightly different way.

Hey, were you ever advised by anybody that you were unable to work because of that uh collision?

Uh some treating doctors.

Okay, and when approximately did that did that happen?

Um that was Dr.

Botros, my first doctor, I scheduled to see.

Um I told him, Hey, I can't go any longer.

Okay, and so it it um it seems to me that there's a period between June 1st of 2022 and uh sometime into 2023 when uh the city of Milwaukee is not concerned about you being out of work.

Is that accurate?

It felt that way, yes.

Okay.

Well, were you on did you ever apply for any uh legal coverage at any time?

I did.

I um had my attorneys at that time, and they were um handling a lot of the paperwork.

Okay, so there was still some tension um right from the beginning.

I'm gonna say tension from between whom it's just you know, it they didn't fully understand, in my opinion, the severity of the injury.

Okay, and I just uh help everybody understand when you're saying they, who are you talking about?

Uh Milwaukee, some of the I guess I'm not gonna say the Milwaukee police department, but even I didn't know the seriousness, and I think that's a lack of knowledge on the police department too to not have the full something in policy with concussions.

I I it's just blindsides, yeah.

Okay, a proct did you ever learn the totality of your condition?

I eventually did learn a lot of things.

Um, but it was kind of the hard way.

I wish I would have had a foreseen warning as to opposed to uh what um what could have happened?

So but you know, it's you gotta learn uh I had to learn that way.

So I guess and when did that happen?

When did you learn the totality of your condition?

Uh through a lot of medical treatment knowledge, um through the doctors.

Um and that was just the physical stuff.

Are you able to give us an approximate date?

Uh no, I'm still I still got a lot of treatment that I'm uh attending.

Okay.

Did you um ever make the city of Milwaukee or the Milwaukee Police Department aware of your condition?

Yes.

When approximately was that I believe um the official notice was uh after the 20th of May.

Okay.

Date.

Yeah.

Oh, I don't recall.

It was uh it was made Sergeant Potzki, I believe.

I don't recall the date, I'm sorry.

Okay, do you recall the year?

It was 2022.

Thank you.

Okay.

And I understood that you remembered that there was a certain person that you sent the or communicated this to.

What was the form of the communication?

If you know, I think it was a call or email.

I believe it was a call because now that I'm thinking about it, I contacted the nurse triage, um, maybe a text, and then information how to go about it.

So I called the nurse line Carl, um, and then I reached out to get uh a law firm.

It's I can't recall, I'm sorry.

Okay, and uh that was a workers' comp law firm.

I believe so, yeah.

It was they handle that.

Okay, and that's the to ask it a different way.

Is that the same law firm you were discussing with my colleague?

Yes, okay.

And uh did you ever have any other communications with the city of Milwaukee regarding your uh condition?

Yeah, I did.

Uh what were those?

Uh exchange of emails and personal dialogue.

Okay.

Who was those emails with?

Emails were between Taylor Misty, and then also um district uh well, district one's early shift uh command staff mostly.

Okay, and who was that?

Uh Lieutenant Borquest.

Um and the sergeants out there.

Okay.

And at any time, did you ever ask for the department to give you a reduced or some other kind of duty than full duty?

I did.

I asked for some accommodations.

Approximately when did that happen?

Uh throughout the um incident.

What were some of those accommodations if you recall?

I'm gonna object as to relevance.

And you want to say that this goes this is this is defense entirely, and it goes to the questions that she's already asked, which is the I mean, there the city's allegation is that there was no um injury that he's faking it, and that he, other than uh the one FMLA that he submitted, he didn't do anything else, and us going the ADA accommodation and failure to accommodate is central to our defense.

I don't know, you I it's I don't even know how to respond.

May I please 6250 doesn't incommodate for uh or doesn't take into consideration uh the ADA?

So I would like to go ahead and indicate that we are here pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 6250 sub-17 is the way we are trying to focus on.

Um extraneous information is unnecessary.

Thank you.

Well, there was only one thing that was brought up within the evidence uh evidence so far about accommodations, yeah.

It's for a three-day week.

Uh I'll note that great.

What other accommodations did you uh ask for?

Same objection.

Uh the accommodations I asked for were very simple.

Um, just the shift change, like basic commodations that other officers were given in the line of duty.

Um, shift change to make my PT appointments, maybe a day off here or there.

Okay.

So and just to be clear, I heard shift change and I heard day off.

Was there anything else before we went to anything else?

I breaks.

I had to often we were understaffed, and I understand that.

It's that's why I intended to return to duty full duty and try to participate as much as I could, uh, balance in those two.

There becomes a point where you're not providing um your health is important, and I didn't feel I got the base accommodations as some of the officers.

One was injured with a hand injury with me in the office.

He worked four hours a day, and I worked eight hours plus my PT, plus my kids.

Okay.

Um again, and I just want to make sure that we've got complete answers on the what all of the requests for accommodations that you asked for.

And I heard shifts, uh, I heard breaks, and was there anything else?

Uh, you know, at one time uh the office clerk Maria, she ordered uh a stand where I didn't have to bend my neck.

Uh otherwise it's you know, it's simple.

Okay.

And so now uh were there any were you aware of any other accommodations that the city of Milwaukee police department were making that uh while you were on uh I guess injured?

Objection to the form of the question.

I I would restate the question, sure.

I just uh and maybe the confusion here is the time period.

So I'm I guess to be clear after June uh first, 2022.

Did you uh were you aware of anybody else being accommodated?

Objection to relevance other individuals' accommodations pursuant to the ADA is irrelevant here.

You know, if it supported or something that supports his request for accommodations, sure.

Okay, but uh okay, but so we're no no no I'm gonna respond here.

So we've got uh seven tests of just cause, and one of those uh chests of just cause is questions whether or not it was reasonable towards everybody and whether the uh standards were reasonably applied.

So if they're giving accommodations to everybody else and they're not giving accommodations to him, then you can't possibly have uh the enough information to answer that question.

So that's he would not have that information anyway.

Well, he's not command staff.

You how would you know?

Have we asked them?

We try to ask them, he could answer.

So, how do you know he doesn't have that information?

He's not command staff.

I go keep that in mind for future reference, but how do you know that he doesn't have that information?

Because he said he wasn't a command, he was a patrol officer.

Okay, but so it's the assumption that the only people who can know are the command staff.

That's what you know.

That's fair.

Well, I would say that if we could determine that there is in the record a record made, that's usually made by command staff.

That's all I can tell you.

Whatever happened in his case.

Uh well, can he answer the question?

Well, what is the question?

That's what I asked.

Is he aware of anybody else getting accommodations after June 1st, 2022?

For what period?

I am until his termination.

I am um one officer was accommodated.

Uh he broke his he sprained his hand or something like that.

Again, I just need to object for the record.

The question then he doesn't have access to the overall record, so proceed.

Well, he had he has one accommodation that we read in the record.

He asked for a three-day work week.

I want to know what period of time he asked for that again, and and when if it was given to him, and if not.

Well, you can ask him that question, but I'm asking the question that I'm asking.

It's your turn.

Okay.

So again, sir, are you how do you know that anybody else was working a four-day shift again?

Thank you.

The records on again objection.

You don't answer the question.

Sorry, sir.

Just answer it.

Go ahead and ask the question that we just did ask the question.

No, you didn't.

Yeah, you went way beyond when to when he asked when did he ask for his accommodation?

And when was it given to him?

If any, or if not that's the important part in this case.

Isn't that a phase two issue?

Fairness.

It would it would be except for violations.

AWOL is part part of this thing.

So it's subsumed in this as well.

I believe Ms.

Robert's okay.

Were you ever rejected any of your accommodations requests?

Were they ever rejected that you know of sir?

Yes.

Okay, when was that?

Again, I'm going to object just for purposes of it not being relevant to the matter at hand, which is again 6250.

Over rule, there's an AWOL that's running throughout the course of this case, and uh I want to I want to argue pinpoint that go ahead.

Can you repeat the question?

Absolutely.

Were you ever refused any accommodation by the Milwaukee police department?

Yes.

Um sorry, when was that?

Uh throughout the uh entirety of what period of time.

Oh, from due to my injury, the 20 uh May 202nd to the termination.

Did the city of Milwaukee ever accommodate any of your requests?

Again, objection, Mr.

Benitez is not a an uh an attorney and does not understand and I don't think he's qualified to speak to what a reasonable accommodation would be pursuant to the ADA.

There is previous accommodations that were that are documented my personal.

I just want to know you went back to work after your injured ostensibly in this May 22nd, May of 22 car incident, right?

You went back to work.

I did when I think I worked the same day.

You think what I worked the same day, sir?

But then you went off.

Then you actually started getting services for that for that injury about a week later.

You said uh, yeah, there was a delay in medical treatment.

I understand.

And then how long were you off duty then before you went back to work?

I don't recall not without the records, but I do know it was uh premature.

That was you got didn't the doctor know or someone say put you back to work and yeah, Dr.

Novell.

Um I think that's the IME that um stated I had to uh return to work.

Dr.

I am me, Dr.

Jared was a neurologist answer the question.

Sorry, go ahead.

I asked the question when did you go back to work?

I don't recall.

All right, go on.

Yes or no, you may continue on your clarification.

I so you were asking a set of questions that you were interested in, but not the questions that I was asking.

So I'm gonna continue to ask the questions that I was asking.

And if you want to interrupt me and ask your own questions again, I I guess I can't do anything about it, but it's this is supposed to be uh his turn to elicit the information that he needs to convey to you all here.

And so one of the what the question what I'm trying to find out here is simply was there uh excuse me, sir.

But I'm I told you to ask the question.

I heard you, and I'm still making my record.

So just ask the question.

I am trying to ask him a very simple question, and you're continually interrupting me and preventing me from doing that.

Can I ask him the question now?

We'll see.

Okay.

So, sir, have you were you ever refused uh an accommodation by the city of Milwaukee?

Same objections in the past and the and during my injury.

Okay, when did they refuse your request for accommodation?

Again, he asked and answered it.

There was no answer.

There was interruption by the hearing examiner and then a deviation off topic, and then the hearing examiner said that we the the he had answered the question.

I move to strike counsel's argument, please.

I am too sustained.

You cannot ask you any more information unless there's substantiation by from the medical record.

That's it.

What does that mean?

You got a whole you have a whole E uh B uh exhibit here that's uh about an inch and a half thick that has medical information in it, and if whatever you're asking him has support from the medical record, incorporate that.

But that's not what I'm trying to do.

I'm trying to ask him questions about what he knows.

So it to be clear, you're now ruling that the city of Milwaukee employees cannot testify to what happened to them unless there's a medical record supporting that.

Is that what you're saying?

I am telling you that unless she can support it with a medical record and he doesn't know himself, then it's not gonna be relevant, it's not gonna be relevant because there's nothing that could be shown that exists because he doesn't either understand it or remember, or there's no medical record, so it's gotta be one or the other.

What it's gotta be one or the other that supports the position taken.

Start your questioning, and that's it.

Okay, so one of those things could be his memory, and another of those things could be the medical records.

But I admit I need to understand that you're saying that he can only testify to things that are in the medical records.

Is what I understand that right?

I'm saying that that supports his position.

That's not my question.

Well, but that's my position.

Carry it on from there.

Well, I I have I'm have no idea what I'm supposed to do here because I you just told me that I can't ask any question unless it's in the medical record that supports his position based on his testimony, and if there's nothing to support it because he doesn't recall it, then you may be out of luck, but there has to be some support for his position.

So let's go.

I can um answer the comment.

Do you recall asking for accommodation requests?

I do.

Do you recall them telling you something other than yes?

In my records, there is um through the refuge.

It was a long process and accommodated.

And one of the issues that I spoke about in those are reflected in my personnel file, which indicate hardship letters that were denied to accommodate me and my family to prevent a lot of this accumulative uh trauma that uh formented, I would say was um kind of pushed aside, and I had to not able to cope with properly, and some of that came out at the refuge, and that's what I speak about about the PTSD.

Um, the head injury kind of brings a lot of that to the surface again because you don't deal with it, you just kind of push on.

So through their process, there's a grievan go, and my file indicates that I was denied three or four shift changes in early shift to accommodate my family with hardship letters or body for body movement, which I think could have prevented some of this uh spiral.

Did any physician ever ask for a change in your schedule?

Yes, okay.

What what did if anything did the city respond to that?

If you know there was no response.

Okay.

Did any physician ever indicate that you were unable to stand for a certain period of time or other similar restrictions?

Yes, there was a restriction for standing, sitting, uh sleep schedule, which was really important, uh shift change um accommodations to ease me back into the role as a police officer.

Some days would be full duty, and some days would not be full duty, just to kind of uh keep um progressive, and that was denied.

It was either all or nothing.

Okay, and what is what did all or nothing mean to you?

Uh, you're either full duty or um what they called limited duty, I guess.

And who what city of Milwaukee employee told you that I don't recall it?

I don't recall who told me that.

Okay, okay, but it was uh from the city.

So uh were you put on something uh some other than something other than full duty at some point?

I would prefer I would request that council clarify his question to identify if after June 1st, 2022 that would help, then I'm happy to add that to the question.

Well, let's get down to some reference and time, okay.

And and you know June in May of 22 is when you had this uh ostensibly had this uh post-dramatic uh uh situation with the with the head trauma.

Sure, and then I would say, and you what you were talking about before in your record that was before then.

I mean, that you're talking about way before uh May of 22, isn't that true?

Yeah, but those are cumulative.

This is all uh part of it.

Uh let's bring it back into reality in terms of the time a physical injury then not a mental injury.

We're talking about here forward, okay.

Okay, that's what I'm interested in.

Okay.

So did anybody make any requests on your behalf for accommodations prior to June 1st, 2022?

No, no, okay.

So let's then we can get back to reality then.

Okay.

So uh of the all of the requests that you've talked about for accommodation, those all happened after June 1st, 2022, didn't they?

Yes, okay.

Most of them, yes.

The hardship letters uh were previously in my career.

Um because we were having kids, and that was a previous um combination, the shift the sleep, but the other combinations were after now.

I got it.

Okay, and some of the shift changes, such as transfer to central book and third shift with a body for body would have helped.

Um if there was more of a compromise than um actually what I needed.

Um, so I tried it for a question.

That was accommodations.

He was answering the question.

He's not going time reference.

I just want to go from from June from May of 22 forward.

Whatever happened before that May 22 forward, this is regarding that.

This is um in 2024.

Um 22 is when you allegedly had this uh brain trauma in yeah.

So this is from 2024, as I was still suffering some of these issues.

I requested to body for body to this uh late shift central book, and that was denied.

Um, even though I had all the ducts in a roll, if you will see got it.

Okay, so um did anybody other than you confirm that you sustained a traumatic brain injury?

Yes, okay.

Who was that?

Multiple physicians and uh doctors, some from the ER.

Uh I forgot her name.

She's one of the first ones when I went to the ER after the spinal fluid, I don't know.

Um got a CT scan from her, and then Dr.

Assad and a couple other doctors.

Were you uh ever um examined by a so-called independent medical examiner?

Yes, okay.

And did that person confirm that you also had uh sustained a injury?

Yeah, neurologist, I believe he was Dr.

Jared.

Okay, I believe that's correct, yes.

Any other physicians that you have?

Uh there are some from the refuge and the brave clinic.

Okay, and then uh so let's pause from what we're talking about now and let's go back to treatment.

At some point you were uh engaged in physical therapy.

Did I understand that right?

Multiple okay.

Describe the physical therapy and uh sorry, how long did that physical therapy go on?

It went on for a long time because there was um flares and uh things that just didn't resolve, so it went on from the 2022, 2023, and I believe the last was in 2024, could have been um yes, even in 2024.

Okay, and about how many hours a week were you participating in the uh PT, if you know uh early on, it was I believe it was uh at least three days a week.

Huh?

And as far as I understand it, uh there was at some point you went to a treatment in Florida, is that right?

Yes, okay.

What was that treatment?

That was a um the refuge of healing place.

It's kind of a um what I would call trauma camp.

Uh so it's just not me, but it's people that have other issues um that need to uh I guess understand um better.

Okay, so it'd be people that are victims of, for example, of a school mass shooting, and then they later on life went there because they were having issues, so they special and categorized in trauma.

How did you get there?

I reached out actually.

Someone kind of gave me um someone to talk to, and I reached out to that person, and then uh they provided um things for me that I didn't have, yeah.

Okay, and what did you how were you uh were you able to contact the outside world at the refuge?

No, it was pretty restricted.

Um, I did have a cell phone, but it was limited to hours.

Okay, and um, are you aware of whether or not the city of Milwaukee was a knew that you were at the refuge at any time?

They did, and what I was instructed to was to focus on treatment, okay, and that's what I did, and I don't regret it.

I just wish I would have done it earlier.

Was there any treatment between when you went to the refuge and the P T uh the PT?

Was there any other like uh major treatment that you had between those two periods?

Uh between the PT and um the refuge?

Right.

I don't remember PT, but I did have nerve ablasions, um some other uh MRI, CT scans, the shoulder was checked out, some nerve testing electrons, and then multiple medication uh prescriptions.

Okay, and uh I guess injections in my spine for trigger points.

We during from June 1st, 2022 until the present.

Have you ever been prescribed any pain medication?

Uh cellbrex, yes.

Okay, has that uh medication uh inhibited your ability to function?

Not that one, but some of them have, yes.

Okay, what other uh pain medications have you taken?

I'm gonna object here.

I think we're going a far outfield of whether uh the relevant portion here is which is uh 6250 again.

I understand that treatment is relevant to some degree, but I think we're getting far too into the weeds at this point in time.

Well, I I had not heard anything about any type of medication regimen uh up until these questions now.

So okay, I would say he does it's it's beyond the scope of of the adverse for sure.

Yeah, not even within the grounds of clarification, you could call your witness back then when it's your turn.

Okay, as far as the medication, if you want me to finish answering, but well, uh the examiner's point, which wasn't my colleague's point, was that uh this is beyond this what uh she had asked, so I'll withdraw the question.

Do you know uh the FMLA law?

Are you do you have full knowledge of all of its implications?

I'm not a lawyer, I do not know the complexities of federal law as far as the medical act and all that.

I'd have to look it up and process it.

And did you discuss um FMLA with anybody at the city of Milwaukee at any time?

I did have conversations limited, but to the emails okay, but uh, so did you communicate with anybody at the verbally?

Yes, okay.

And um just didn't really at the time.

I wish I would have had someone just to sit down, simple as that.

Hey, this is the one that we want to fill out together, and then this can get you off.

We can speed up that recovery.

Okay, simple.

Did you ever um allege that Misty Taylor was messing around with your FMLA?

I felt there was systematic, I hate to use that word, but systematic uh harassment, and I use it because it's more than one person, and it's when you get injured, they don't take you to the hospital right away.

You know, someone's obviously injured, take them to the hospital.

Do you believe that you were obviously injured after on June 1st, 222?

No mistake in it.

Like you I'll say it this way.

My symptoms were so obvious, you couldn't miss it unless you tried.

I'll rephrase that too.

You couldn't miss it unless you tried to, so they were obvious.

Vominant uh tripping over my own feet, off balance, vertigo.

Um I guess what were focal seizures because it was too bright, headaches rest in my neck against the wall because I didn't have a um chair with the support, uh, going to my car, uh just that stuff.

And what's the time period for this?

Uh that's early on.

Okay, and I believe before you talked with my colleague about a uh a memo from I think the captain and lieutenant at District One about you not uh not wanting to seek medical treatment.

Do you recall that?

I'm sorry, could you refer uh could you uh say that again?

Sure, and I can show you the document if you don't recall, but the it is as I understand there was a uh, and I guess I'll just refer your attention to E17.

That's the large group of gotcha the rubber band okay, and so I'm on the first page of this, which just says E17, and there's no baits numbers at the bottom of that, and it starts.

There's uh four documents there, and the first one uh says Milwaukee Police Memorandum, and the date is 531 2022 to Captain James Campbell.

Do you see that there?

On the back side, E17, top left corner.

Um E17 first page, yeah.

And can I just show them is it dated Wednesday, June 1st?

The first page has got four pages on it.

I guess the one two-third page gotcha, gotcha.

Understood.

So and and uh my colleague went through with that document with you and said I asked P.O.

Benidez if he wanted medical attention at the time for his complaint, and he stated no.

Do you see that there?

I do.

Okay, do you believe at that time it was it was obvious that you were uh medically injured?

I think the video indicates it was obvious, and I know it was obvious.

Were you having trouble walking at that time?

I was very lethargic from what I recall.

Um it was just kind of like a numb feeling.

Okay.

Do you believe that your general health condition uh was obvious to MPD staff after uh January or June 1st, 2022?

Uh yes.

Okay, why do you believe that?

Uh it was obvious to me.

I know a lot of these mental uh head injuries are go unnoticed, but there was some gates.

My gate wasn't off.

Um, I was irritable, I was kind of on edge.

Um, you know, not my normal self in a sense, and then there was me riding in pain.

I remember just so much pain.

So it was obvious guarding my body was guarding it.

Um sluggish slow.

One time I came to work, yes, it was obvious double vision.

I remember that and one other thing that they would have noticed now that I recall is I always turn the lights down when I came in, so it was pretty obvious.

Great.

I'm gonna turn your attention to uh what's marked 362 in the the the big medical records one, and it's it's quite a ways in there.

Okay.

Sorry, doctor.

This is E17, and at the bottom left is page 365.

But the page that we're gonna first look to is page 362.

Well, it's not a date statement, it's not a bait stamp, these are paginated.

Yes, it's or per page.

So it's pretty hard to find.

It is, and it's I mean, there is I grant that it's gonna be very difficult behind your just help you by showing you my copy.

What page did he say?

You have no idea.

Great.

So are you on that page?

Is this the correct one?

Uh printed on 1026, 23, 75 a.m.

page 37.

That one?

I believe so.

Okay.

And so we're I'm on the top.

I'm not at the right page.

What was the page number again, please?

I'm not sure.

365.

365.

365 at the bottom right now.

I appreciate everybody's assistance with this.

How come these aren't titled?

Three six five.

There you go.

Oh, sorry about that.

Just keep that over there.

So again, we're looking at that.

Gotcha.

And uh at the top of that page there, can you uh explain what that document is?

Uh this is from Aurora Healthcare.

Okay, and and what is it's uh what does it say?

Uh it's dated 411, 2023 e advice in AHCM St.

Luke's back and spine program.

It's a continuation page.

Uh from Benitez Christopher, that's me to Dr.

P Geikis.

That's my physician at the time.

Sent 41139 59 p.m.

That's the date stamp.

Are you what are you doing in that uh or what uh sorry?

Is can you continue to read that?

Sure.

Hi, this is Christopher Benitez, and I was messaging Dr.

Geikus's team to have him fill out our department PP 18.

My work will not be accommodating the recent releases to the work paperwork.

Oh, I misspelled there.

Uh and then Jennifer sent, which we discussed returning back to work two days for two weeks, then back to work three days for two weeks, and so on.

Sergeant Taylor response was as follows for further information.

Should I continue reading?

Yes, please.

The medical excuse you provided will not be accepted by the human resources medical section.

We do not have a particular uh a partial limited duty program.

You have been advised of this in the past.

When you provide medical notes from your previous doctor last year, dot dot dot end of quote.

Then it goes on demanding an update, PP18 in parentheses uh parently's physical physicians report by Friday, April 14th, and how I failed to provide such documents in the past.

Okay, and then there's more, but is that uh an example of uh refusal of accommodation as you understood it?

That is one that was documented, yes.

Okay, and did uh Misty Taylor from the medical section ever tell you that the city would anything other than what you had put in that document there, namely that the only accommodation that the city would give you was light duty.

Yeah, it was that uh you know that was that, I guess, and she maintained that the entire time throughout your employment.

Is that true?

Yeah, that's what I recall.

Okay, thank you for that.

This is like his uh this is what they were just done page, please.

No, I just say my SJ.

This is the best I can see.

I like it.

Is it working?

Yeah, good, good.

Okay, so sir.

I'm gonna direct uh your attention to the previous page from there, which is mark 369.

I guess it's the back page of that 369.

I'm there.

Okay, so this is one of the medical notes.

Uh as the examiner said, describing your alleged injuries here, and it says Christopher A.

Benitez again appears to be presenting with axial neck pain consistent with systematic spon dialosis facet, arthropathy, together with secondary elements of compens compensatory myofascial pain.

Did I read that right?

I'm gonna assume you did.

It's very fine print, and those are bigger words than I understand.

Okay, do you uh and then I'll so I'll save everybody the words, but it's uh at least on this date here of four or five 2023.

Did you understand this to be your diagnosis?

Uh I just knew I was in pain and um a lot of pain and spinalysis, um, which can trauma can affect, and I was just in a lot of pain, so I just told my doctor, here take this and just try to just try to manage the pain.

Okay, and then I'll just read from the diagnosis section.

It says Christopher A.

Benita's is a very pleasant 38-year-old Milwaukee police officer with a PMXH uh PMHX past medical history, significant for chronic headaches and anxiety who presents for reevaluation of chronic neck pain, started reportedly in May of 2022.

SP motor vehicle accident after his partner abruptly stepped on the brakes in his squad car.

He did strike his head on the visor on the left side.

There is generally not upper extremity reference noted, but he does not intermittent right fourth fifth digit hand parethis.

His symptoms, physical exam, and prior doctor diagnostics are most consistent with neck pain, cervical spondylosis, cervical myofascial pain syndrome, and chronic right shoulder pain.

Do you see that there?

I did.

Does that generally describe your medical condition at that time as you experienced it?

Um that's what they were finding out, but it was actually worse than that.

But that's what they they what they were we were trying medications and trying to manage everything, trigger points, and that's what they had at the time.

Diagnosed.

I got it.

Okay.

So then um I I'd like to move on.

Uh you went to another clinic after uh the refuge.

What was that?

So prior to the refuge.

Okay, I was treated at the Brave Clinic.

Um, and that's the outpatient intermittently, and I was through a team of uh psychiatrists, doctors, uh neurologists, PT.

Um, and then I think that was in October, and then I went to the refuge for intensive inpatient to process some stuff and some very work stuff, and then release from the inpatient to uh outpatient care, which is normal, and that's where I continue to be treated with.

Yeah, that's uh that's it.

Uh brave, like uh yeah.

There you go.

Okay, and what uh what kind of treatment did you receive there?

Uh it was a lot of treatment.

Um of it was just uh talk therapy, and some of it was um processing, and some of it was more complex than I would do justice speaking about.

So about how many hours in a week did you uh attend the Brave Clinic?

Uh there they have um uh it was continuous.

Uh they do have a partial three-week uh course uh that I attended, and then I just wasn't ready at that point, and that's when a lot of the medical issues were happening with uh the uh HR section.

Okay, and then uh yeah, I couldn't focus on the the program, and then I was kind of discharged from it, and then I continued this.

Um you're not there yet, paste got it.

Okay, so I'm gonna turn again in the medical records.

I'm sorry for the small print, but for page one two nine, one two nine in the quarter.

Okay, so I think it's gonna be in the set here.

Perfect five.

So was the first doctor you saw at Satic?

Uh first doctor I saw was Dr.

Voltros.

Uh B O R T O Sene.

Yeah.

Okay, so where I'm gonna focus everybody now is on page one two seven, which is the the quadrant right above one two nine.

Do you see that, sir?

Uh one two seven one two seven, top right.

Yeah, and I can just read for that for everybody's benefit.

This patient called, he is taking a test Wednesday for work.

He would like to get a letter stating due to his head injury from a car accident within this past year.

He would like additional time to complete the test.

Patient stated that he has trouble focusing with details and reading since his accident.

Do you see that?

There I'm gonna assume your the documents you're reading as fair enough.

So without taxing your eyes, can you tell us if that what I read fairly describes your medical condition at that time?

I so it described it at that time and still present.

Okay, and then patient stated that he no longer takes medication for anxiety and notices the change.

He will like to pick up a letter at the clinic and have it sent to him through his live well account.

He is supposed to get the letter to the quote test people tomorrow morning.

Do you see that there?

Or let me ask it another way.

Yes, who's the test people if you know?

I'm sorry, I don't.

Um I kind of uh could you repeat the question?

Well, it's if you don't know who they are, then you don't know who they are.

I don't okay.

So uh and now we're gonna go to page one three three.

Yeah, and so at the bottom, sir, and not to text your eyes.

I'll just remove it says good morning, Christopher.

Restriction paperwork received has been completed in facts to a number.

Unfortunately, I am unable to send a copy of the completed paperwork through this app.

I can email it to you if you would like me to email you it to you.

Please provide me with the email.

So my question is are you a uh aware of what uh the telephone number 4149357511?

Is that a city number?

Yeah, if it starts with 935, it's most like certainly is and then you said the last four digits were what 7511.

7511.

Yeah, that sounds like a district number.

Okay, possibly uh I don't know, that code.

Great, and then now I'm gonna turn your attention to page one three five.

And that says at the top limited duty policy statement.

Do you see that there?

Uh I'm gonna just sorry, I I don't not on the proper page.

Oh, I can just show you this.

Sure, and you can see there it says one three five in the bottom.

135.

Okay, I'm well.

Thank you.

Do you want to continue looking at this version?

Um yeah, why not?

Okay.

This is a lesson everybody never do four up on a page.

All right, I do.

I'm familiar with that.

Thank you.

Okay, what is that document?

Uh that is on the um medical paperwork that was supposed to be filled out by the doctor.

That's the back page, I believe.

Got it.

I'm gonna move on to a slightly different topic.

Do you are you recall the questions uh from my colleague about the city of Milwaukee paying all your bills up until 2024?

Do you recall that?

I do.

Uh do you know why they did that?

Because I was injured on the job.

Did uh deputies ever come to or sorry, did police officers ever come to your house at any time?

Yes, they did.

For what reason, if you know to make me come to work, I guess.

Okay.

Do you believe at that time that you were visibly injured?

No, I know I was.

Yes.

Is that is how long of a period is that?

That was multiple occasions.

Um, the time that I was out with Dr.

Geikus, I recall um on his medical uh slip, and I had a conversation with them.

Okay, about the flare-ups, and I believe this is regarding one of the charges.

Um, I did have multiple sergeants uh that were ordered to come in to uh order me into work.

They stated it was a lawful order, which is not lawful or proper, in my opinion, and I did not buy that, but I did feel threatened that I was gonna lose my income.

Why didn't you feel that it was not a lawful order?

It just no we're ordered to take prudent risk on the job, and I don't feel that is uh a proper risk to take.

If you're injured and you're not able to perform task at work, you're taking an unprudent risk, you're taking more than is expected.

So that was my thought.

Is how could you order someone in when they can't even uh function daily activities?

Was Captain feel aware of your ability to function at that time?

Again, um there's no date, there's no specification here at that time is reference is vague.

Well, while these put these officers were coming to your house again, objection vave that we don't have any dates in question.

Yeah, he's indicated that there's been multiple December of 2024 is the time frame I think you're referring to.

Um I believe he had to be aware of it.

Um I don't know if he was the captain at the time.

Um, but there was definitely knowledge, like I said, it was noticeable on early shift.

That's the shift I was on, and whoever was ordering them in, they they could have saw that uh what kind of capacity I was in.

Okay.

I just want to focus on uh one other point here, which was uh at some point.

I believe you said earlier in your testimony today that somebody had provided you with a like a movable desk or some kind of desk.

Yes, so there was eventually accommodation made, and it was greatly appreciated.

When uh excuse me, sir, but when did that happen?

Later on, um a year later from the injury.

Okay, maybe two, I don't know.

And uh Maria ordered it.

I who's Mariah Maria's an office clerk.

Okay, um, it was just a simple stand.

Um, because I was having uh issues with bend in the neck um and stooping, so it was nice to move around.

Okay, do you know who had to approve that?

I don't what's Maria's last name?

I think it was uh Scheifer.

I can't recall.

I'm sorry.

Actually, I do have one last series of questions.

You went through uh with my colleague the code of conduct, yes, right?

Okay, and uh you went through uh what whether or not you believe that certain rules are reasonable, right?

Yeah, okay, and you but you weren't the decision maker in this case, were you?

No, okay, no more questions.

I do want to add though, I didn't feel I was being disrespectful to great.

And I'm gonna ask this question different way.

Is there anything that you feel that the commissioners should know at this point, given the questions that have already been asked?

Uh I just was going along and I wasn't being disrespectful uh to my command staff by not showing up for work.

I um was being respectful by pushing aside my personal injuries that were sustained from work to accommodate them, but I never thought I was being disrespectful to them by not showing up to work because of my injuries.

Thank you.

Any clarification, reclarification?

Uh, briefly, and I do think I can get it done before noon.

So that is the goal.

I do think I can get it done before noon, so we are gonna get this done.

Give me a shot.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right, uh, you had uh gonna go ahead and ask you a series of questions that you have still have E 17 in front of you.

Uh E17, yeah.

Yeah, it's a large, no, no, no, it's a large one.

Yeah, yeah.

And I'll ask you, you don't.

I know you had a hard time reading it, so I'm not gonna you know pull that up, but you recall being asked a question about getting a letter to the quote test people and quote, those are your words.

Test people, the quote test people.

Okay, do you remember that series of questions from counsel?

Yes, okay.

Did you uh participate in an FPC promotional exam to become a sergeant in September of 2000 and uh 23?

Now that you mentioned I do recall because my career review board, they gave me all negative implex, and I just thought it was kind of biased and personal that they would give me all negative feedback for my career review.

I think that's the one you're talking about.

Yes, okay.

So you you applied for the promotional exam with FPC.

Yes, okay.

So the test people to uh it would if if I indicate to you the test people are civilian members of the FPC who handle promotional exams.

Does that ring true to your memory?

I don't recall.

Do you recall I don't recall the uh the mindset I was in?

I understand.

Yeah.

Do you recall attending the promotional examination for Sergeant?

Yes.

Do you recall that that wasn't a hotel?

I believe the Hilton downtown.

I thought it was St.

Katie's.

Oh, it might be in St.

Kate's in September 23.

Do you recall going to uh uh St.

Kate's for the promotional exam?

Yes.

All right, and you go into the individual rooms and then you're asked questions and things like that.

Yes.

Okay.

Do you recall FPC staff having to go to find you to get to the second exam because you were nowhere to be found?

I was found at the uh getting water because I was very thirsty.

Uh I was on a lot of pain man uh management medication.

Certainly that makes you perched.

So I went down to the first floor lobby to get water, and then they had to fetch me.

Yes.

They had to come get you because you were late for your second series.

I was late.

I was told the time I went to get water, and then I came back at the set uh at the set time that I thought it was, and that's what happened.

Okay.

Um, I want to uh turn your attention now to the exhibits labeled E.

That's an elephant three.

E three for me, please.

September 2023.

I'm gonna ask you, Sergeant Benitas to or I'm sorry, uh Mr.

Benitas to turn to page I have promotional exams in my head right now to page 15 of 31.

So in the upper right hand corner, it's gonna be pages 15 of 31.

Uh uh what did it exhibit of exhibit E3?

I was just about to get there for you.

E as an elephant.

Gotcha.

It's gonna be on the back.

This is E for Oh, this is my face number's structure here.

This one's not basis labeled 15 or 31 on the um doc.

E3.

E3, you got it?

Okay, great.

Again, 15 to 31.

15 of 31, rather gonna turn your attention when you get there to the center of the page, which indicates this is again the absence SOP 101.55, which indicates on duty injury procedures um focused on the Wiley Egg standard 242.

Do you see that?

Wiley Act uh 2.42?

Yep, the on-duty procedures?

I do okay.

I'm gonna read that first a notification.

Whenever a member sustains a work-related injury, he or she shall immediately notify a supervisor of this fact.

Each instance that the member fails to comply with the requirement of this subsection shall result in the member losing his or her entitlements to any injury pay for that incident.

Did I read that correctly?

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Sir, would you agree with me that um shifts changing or uh work locations changing is the privy of the chief and the seventh floor and determining uh for the good of the department where members need to be placed?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?

Certainly, it was kind of a convoluted one, so I'll I'll try to narrow it for you.

The chief is allowed to make personnel decisions as to where officers are scheduled to work, correct?

Yes, okay, thank you, which are heavily influenced by uh direct supervisors and sergeants and certainly I understand accommodations.

Certainly, I understand that.

And the decision maker in this case would be the chief, correct?

With his advisors, I would assume so louder with his advisors.

I am finished with uh redirect.

All right, anything further for clarification?

Yes, just one segment, sir.

Can you go to page 13 of that same document?

Or the record counsel, that's E3 E3 uh absence, yeah, and medical certification requirement.

Yeah, and medical certification requirement.

Do you see that there?

I do.

Okay.

Was I'm just looking at page or item three, the medical certificate requirement.

Was that read signed and dated by the member, the supervisor counseling the member, and the member's commanding officer?

Do you know if that happened?

I believe so.

Okay.

Do you know if the medical certification certification requirement program checklist uh was read and signed by you and the supervising uh the supervisor counseling you?

I believe so.

That's why it got um process.

Who's the supervisor counseling you at that time?

I believe it was uh Sergeant Potsky Potsky.

Okay.

Could be then it goes a cut copy of the medical certification questionnaire shall be provided to the member for completion by the members' physician.

Did that happen?

Uh yeah, I think there was I can't recall who filled it out.

I thought it was Dr.

Boltross was the first one.

Okay, uh now let's look at number six.

It says the member will be on medical required program until they have been informed of their removal from the program.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Okay.

How if at all were you uh informed of your removal from the program?

Um might have been through an email or the IME, but um Sergeant Potsky and Simonson saw that I was missing a lot of um, I I believe it was them.

They saw that I was missing a lot of uh days due to this injury, so they extended um this medical substantiation or something like that.

I can't recall the details.

Okay.

Well, do you recall ever getting a medical certification requirement program six month review?

No, no, I don't okay.

Thank you.

That off that's all right.

Thank you.

We're not there yet now.

Now I'm just sorry.

Microphone.

Um that microphone um, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh concerning the um time you were at the uh Waukeshaw County Courthouse with regard to um your appearance there.

Did you testify about the circumstances of the accident?

Are you speaking of I'm also uh um going through a divorce, so I was uh oh how's this a bit better?

All right, sorry about that.

Uh I was going through multiple um legal issues, it was like a trifecta of horror.

Um, but one of them was a divorce, and then one was the um other issues.

So one was the civil and one was the criminal at this time.

Okay, well I'll be more specific.

When you were served with um uh some papers by the department at the walk ishaw courthouse.

This was during the civil divorce, yes, I believe.

Uh that was during the divorce.

I believe so.

Okay.

So, in regard to the time you pled to a ordinance or a ticket uh in regard to the domestic violence incident.

Do you recall your appearance in court that day?

So I believe your misunderstanding.

There was um really no plead.

Uh I paid my attorney to go to trial.

From my understanding, the case was dropped.

And because I was gonna risk my career to go to trial and prove my innocence because I thought it was the right thing to do.

And um, you know, so your your attorney acted without your authorization.

He was there with me, and I explained to him, and he said it's uh dismissed without prejudice, and that was it.

Um, it's ordered to the lower courts um and order a citation.

I never got a citation, which wouldn't fit the um uh ordinance elements, um, which is disorderly conduct.

Okay, and uh a few more questions here.

Sure.

And I okay, I just want to add too that previous to that there was a um orders for uh uh TROs injunctions that were overturned, which is a lower standard than uh approved of evidence, I believe.

So those were overturned, and my de novo case was prejudice dismissed without prejudice, also.

Okay, we're really not going into the divorce and the TROs.

Um, you said something about making a request for a transfer body to body late shift booking.

What is that?

So it's almost like a certain thing to have someone from what I understood.

You put on the on the board, you're looking for a transfer.

I was looking for a transfer.

Me and my wife were having issues with my injury managing work, and everything was it was just chaotic.

Um, so I requested shift change, and there was a person who reached out to me and said, Hey, I'll help you out.

So I tried to go to late shift um and I requested her body to be on early shift to exchange my body, so there's no loss.

They actually gain someone that can attend work regularly, but it was denied, I guess, and never came to fruition.

Okay, thank you, Bud.

No problem.

Wondered what that was.

Yeah, okay.

Then um there was a lot of testimony about your symptoms being so obvious that uh you were having vertigo tripping over your feet, you were um temper on edge, irritable, trouble walking.

It was like a fight or flight constantly.

Lethargic, all of that, okay.

Uh yeah, double vision at some point, double and blurry.

Uh were you driving your automobile at that time yourself?

I had to.

Okay, so you were operating your own motor vehicle at that time.

Yeah.

Okay.

The difficult part.

Yeah, you don't have to, you don't have to go on because there's not a question pending.

Okay.

Okay.

Oh, then there was uh little testimony about how uh Maria Um provided you with uh a device for you to stand, like a standing desk piece that sits on top of your desk and you can raise it and lower it.

Is that right?

It was just a simple basket of organization um tools to hold the computer up.

Um she ordered it and helped me out um just because the neck slight neck bending and my axle.

Um was that a device, or was that equipment that they had at the district, or did they have to order that in specially from purchasing?

Uh I was using a stack of papers, which is part of the obvious that I was suffering.

So I'd use a stack of uh printing paper, sometimes three, sometimes two.

Um, so she ordered that, I believe, to help me out.

Okay, when you say she ordered it, yeah.

Was there a time lag?

Yeah, I mean, I used the paper stack for uh since I was in the office, and then Maria transferred in 2024 to late shift, and then she ordered that.

She kind of came in and put her pizzazz on the district and made it a little bit better.

Okay, so how long was it between you asking for or strike that?

Did you ask for an accommodation in terms of a standing desk?

I was focusing, yes, I did.

They had standing desks, they had one in the assembly, they had one in the sergeant's office.

Um, so it was like a verbal ask, but I was focused on the larger aspects, um, which was time off that I needed.

So that's where my main requests were focused on, and I didn't, you know, I didn't get those, so I just kind of felt why would they give me this?

Okay, so if I understand correctly, you observed that there were the standing desk uh devices at the district station, correct?

Correct, not in the front office, but in the back offices, and to the best of your recollection, you did not request the use of one of those.

I did.

I just didn't put it on a um memo, and I guess that's how things get moved instead of politely asking.

Okay, so you didn't submit a written request.

I should have had a better paper trail, you're correct.

Okay.

Um there was uh uh period of time when the city continued to pay your medical bills subsequent to your injury after their IME said that you could return to work.

Do you remember that?

That was the third time I saw the IME, it was brief.

Um but the first IME said that I needed time off, and he gave me some restrictions, and he was a different um specialist.

I'm sure we can look at your medical records for that.

I do what I'm asking is that time period that they later said they should not have paid your medical bills that they did it by mistake.

Okay.

So for that time period that that happened, were you uh working light duty or were you receiving injury pay or what was going on?

I was working light duty, I was doing my best.

Okay, I think that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Funnel.

Uh I do have a few questions.

Um I still feel a little bit um unclear, so I'm gonna ask you to clarify um with regards to the DB case.

Did you receive any citation as a result of the DV case?

Uh no.

Okay, and then can you re-explain to me um just for my clarity?

Um you said that you wanted to go to trial, but your attorney did not go to trial.

My attorney is the expert.

Um, there was a before trial, I felt we had a good um the level of in trial, the level of uh proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Um we had some success early, and we overturned something that was a lot lower in uh value of proof, and that's reasonable suspicion and injunction was overturned.

So I thought we had um I thought we should have gone to court because I don't want to be categorized as you know that type of person.

Okay, and uh you also mentioned that other officers um there's a long line of questioning about accommodations, and you mentioned that other officers with injuries had accommodations um and that you felt that you were not given accommodations.

Did that make you feel resentful?

I didn't wasn't resigned full, you know, they deserved it.

Um I just thought I deserved it too.

Thank you.

Um then do you feel um since I'm thinking about the fact that we're looking at the just cause standards here?

Um so do you feel that there is a difference between uh violating the rules because you believe that they are not fair?

Um sorry, let me rephrase this.

Do you believe that it's justified to violate department rules and SOPs if you believe that they are not fair?

I do believe, yeah.

Um, there's a certain way that yes, not that they're not fair, it's just I have to listen to my physicians, I have to listen to my body, I have to listen, you know.

I have other priorities, and like I have to weigh all that in, so yes, I guess so.

There's a lot more factors than just this or that.

Okay, thank you.

That's all the questions I have.

Yes, Mr.

Benitas.

Did uh through all of this, did the union help you help you submitting anything, help you through the process of the duty injury?

How did the union play?

I reached out to the union um early on regarding some harassment, yes.

Uh there was some memos put out uh by the president at the time, uh Andrew Wagner, um, that was referring to kind of don't harass our limited duty personnel, and it was referring to Taylor Misty, I believe, at the medical section and some prior issues that were similar to mine.

So I did reach out to them, but I didn't get I had my legal team and I didn't really get too much back from the union as far as um as much as I was hoping, I guess.

Okay, so the in this legal team was is that Miguel Swimer was that you mean that's the union's legal team, isn't it?

So they were supporting that through supporting you through them.

Yeah, so there was them, and then I had the union, but that's kind of where all my attention went to was uh a person I was a legal aid that I was handling with that.

All right, thank you.

Um I think it's for six months or something.

And that's what I kind of want someone to sit me down at the time because I was so discombobulated, and I would have helped.

Okay.

So off the record, I mentioned last time that Mr.

Banitas had a hard stop at I think three forty five, because he had to go pick up his kids.

If we're continuing after that, it's okay with me if he leaves and we continue.

Uh Mr.

Hitchcock Cross.

Anything you want to bring up.

Uh yes, actually, I do have an oral argument or opening statement that I'd like to make.

All right, you reserve your right, so you may do so.

Thank you.

Um, here in this case, the testimony uh has already shown and will continue to show that my client suffered from a traumatic brain injury uh that uh occurred on the line of duty through no fault of his own.

It's also clear that the department uh was well aware of his condition, uh, because they interacted with him, at least in terms of how they wanted to interact with him, but not what the law requires.

And in this case, it's gonna be very clear that uh both the FMLA and uh the Americans with Disabilities Acts were ignored by this department, and that uh through the process of ignoring those laws, the department then created conditions where it could terminate my client, and that but for uh I mean ultimately what is happening in this case, the evidence will show is that my client was a productive police uh officer until he was injured on the line of duty, and then the department threw him away, like used Kleenex, and that's ultimately uh this officer has uh put himself at danger and at risk uh on behalf of the people of the city of Milwaukee.

He did so in good faith on that day and was injured, and the people of the city of Milwaukee have not taken care of this injured um police officer in the way that they said that they would, and the way that the law requires.

And when we look at uh whether or not there was rules that were violated, ultimately the answer is gonna be no, because um Mr.

Benitez followed what he was supposed to do, and the city didn't do what they were supposed to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, with that in mind, uh, do you want to call your first word?

Yes, Pamela Roberts, please.

Roberts, please step up to Sworn.

Use your right hand.

You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the true self you got in the matter now before this commission.

Yes, all right.

Please have a seat there, ma'am, and pull that microphone up and speak right into it, and then spell your first name and your last name, and uh we'll go from there.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Pamela Roberts, P A M E L A Roberts, R O B E R T S.

All right, proceed.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Miss Roberts.

Can you hear me?

Yes, good afternoon.

Uh and and you and I have never worked together before, right?

No.

Okay.

Not to my knowledge.

Do you who do you work for?

I work for the city of Milwaukee Police Department.

Okay, in what capacity?

As the HR administrator.

Okay.

And uh I believe that I've seen on the website something that says that you're a department manager for uh at the police department.

Is that true?

That is correct, the administrator.

Okay, so those we can use the term administrator and uh manager inner interchangeably here.

Sure, I don't have a problem with that.

Okay, great.

And then so what in what what does your role as administrator entail?

As the administrator of MPDHR, I oversee um the medical section.

I oversee the payroll section and personnel section and background investigations.

I ensure that uh policies, um, procedures, contracts, and all those types of things are in compliance of our daily functions that we are in compliance of those.

Okay, what kind of education do you have?

Um, I've completed uh masters of business administration.

Okay, do you have any training in HR?

Yes, I have over 30 years of experience in HR and also my undergrad and graduate.

Okay, how about do you have any training in the family uh medical leave act?

I have that during my courses and also do my employment.

Okay, so is it fair to say that for the Milwaukee Police Department?

You're the the person in charge of FMLA?

I am the person basically that is overseeing the medical section who administers FMLA, yes.

Okay, who is the administrator for uh FMLA for the department?

Well the administrator, the health and safety officer administrates FMLA.

There's people who re who reviews it and approves FMLA, yes.

Okay, so who would identify who the administrator is, please?

I'm gonna object.

Um insofar as I objects, uh calls for any kind of legal conclusion as to what an FMLA administrator is per the statute.

Um that would be my objection here.

Well, and I just to avoid that, I'll ask a slightly different question.

Do that.

Um who at the MPD is the FMLA administrator.

Well, my title is HR administrator.

Okay, so I oversee the medical section, but I don't necessarily hands on a minister FMLA.

Okay, and why or why not?

Well, that's not part of my daily functions.

I have a HR officer that is hands on with FMLA approvals as a design.

Right.

Have you ever seen any uh any uh documentation that it would indicate that Misty Taylor is the FMLA administrator for the department?

Um I would I would say that it's in the job description.

Okay, and have you seen the process?

I wouldn't I would say that the HR officer position okay, is that for the health and safety officer position, excuse me?

So my question focuses on a document.

So are you able to identify a document that uh states that Misty Taylor is the administrator for FMLA for the district?

I would have to say perhaps the job description.

Okay for whom for the the health and safety officer position.

Oh, okay.

Now I noticed uh that you're not in uniform.

Are you a law enforcement officer?

No.

Okay, but you have uh you supervise law enforcement officers.

Is that fair?

Yes, I have, and I currently do, yes.

Okay, who do you supervise that's a law enforcement officer?

Um at this time, uh Sergeant Misty Taylor reports to me.

Um I believe that's the only officer law enforcement person that I have in HR at this time.

Do you know why she uh there is a sworn law enforcement officer under your supervision?

Because she was selected to perform the duties of the health and safety officer.

There is a history that uh administrative lieutenant, sergeant's lieutenant um have been assigned to the medical section in that capacity.

Okay, and what does health and safety officer mean to you?

Health safety officer is the manager of the medical section that performs the duties and tasks of the medical um functions of the department.

Okay, and is that person making the decisions on their own?

Thank you.

Um object to the form of the question uh specifically as it relates to decisions.

There's no well, all right.

How about FMLA?

Is that person the health and safety officer?

Is that person making decisions about FMLA on their own?

Based on procedures, guidelines and um regulations, yes.

Okay, so basically they're following those guidelines and regulations.

And what role do you, if any, do you have in the FMLA process?

Well, when the uh design is not there, I will review a FMLA request, the documents, and approve it.

Um other than that, um, daily functions, I would say I'm hands-off until a problem arises to my level, and then it's brought to my attention and resolved.

How would a problem be brought to your level?

It would be brought to the level of a staff from the medical section coming to me to discuss it, and so if Misty Taylor had a problem, she could go to you.

Absolutely.

But otherwise she's on her own.

Fair.

I'm gonna object to leading.

It's cross-examination, it's not cross-examination.

Exactly.

I'll let her answer the question.

Could could you repeat that please?

Speak up real nice and loud into that microphone, Mr.

Okay.

Can you read back the question?

From what I heard, you asked me.

Oh, she's just no problem.

I'm sorry.

I wasn't referring to you, ma'am.

I was referring to the court reporter, and excuse me though.

Otherwise, she is not.

Oh, um, again, based on the procedures, guidelines, and the rules, then she's following.

I would say that she can definitely approve or perform a duty.

She's a manager indirectly supervised.

I got it indirectly.

Okay.

And how why do you believe she's a manager?

Well, that's the classification of the position.

Okay.

And that's the role.

Okay.

So let's talk about the FMLA process.

What uh happens if somebody, and this is as according to your knowledge and understanding.

If somebody is request FMLA, what should the department do?

Well, there are documents and forms that need to be filled out by the member and submitted to the medical section for review.

And once we receive those, then everything is reviewed and assessed.

And based on what we have, a recommendation is made.

It's an approval, or we may need more additional documentation, or based on a number of things, it could be denied.

Okay.

So again, my question relates to the procedure here.

So the first thing I'm trying to get at is let's you you're aware, you're uh you or your subordinates are aware that somebody is injured and may need uh family medical leave.

Do you, as your department, have any obligations at that point, as if you know if someone is injured?

Yeah, not unless it's brought to our attention.

There's lots of people injured on a daily basis that doesn't warrant FMLA.

Okay.

So and maybe I'm not using putting the question precisely, so I will try to rephrase it in such a way that it could be more precise.

Um if the department is aware that an employee has an FMLA qualifying event, does the department have any duties?

If you know it is up to the member to request FMLA.

Okay.

So I it's fair to say that if you're if the department is aware of an FMLA qualifying event, you it's your position that the department has no obligation.

Is that fair?

I don't believe I said that.

Well, that's why I said if we are aware of an FMLA request, then we have an obligation to review it and assess it and process it accordingly to our guidelines.

Okay, but that's rules.

So to be clear, unless an employee fills out an FMLA request form, your department has no duty.

Is that fair?

Um Jack to mischaracterization of the witnesses' testimony.

Overall, she can answer.

I I can't, I don't I can say that there are times that members have come to HR not knowing what they are able to or eligible to receive, and we have provided them guiding as far as whether they can do a medical leave or uh FMLA leave.

So um, but again, we can't assist them if we're not aware of the need.

Okay.

Do you know what an eligibility notice is under the FMLA?

An eligibility notice?

That's right.

Well, it sounds like notifying if they're eligible.

Oh, okay.

Do you have any idea when uh by federal law the department is required to give an employee an eligibility notice?

Um, I'm gonna say because I haven't administered FMLA um frequently, I'm gonna say no.

Okay, but I do know that we're supposed to guide members who seek FMLA.

I have not.

Have not.

Okay.

And so this is and to be clear, that's if they've asked for FMLA, but that's not if they've if you've learned or the department has learned of a potential FMLA qualifying absence, correct?

I'm gonna object insofar as the fact that that calls for a legal conclusion.

I'm not asking for legal conclusions very clearly, I'm asking what her knowledge and understanding is as the administrator of this medical section department while using specific legal conclusions or conclusory terms.

Can the department can you on behalf of the department initiate an FMLA request?

Or does it have to come from a member?

It has to come from the member.

All right.

Start with that.

Good.

Okay.

So I to then to be clear, based on that understanding, if you're aware of a potential FMLA qualifying absence, your understanding is the department has no uh duty.

Fair if I if we're aware of it, then we most definitely would reach out to the member.

Yes, we will, and we have, and we do.

Okay.

Does that does that answer conflict with the previous answer stating that the the only time an eligibility notice would be sent is if someone requests FMLA, or did I misunderstand that okay?

So it is to up to the member to request a FMLA.

If we have knowledge that a member is uncertain of their eligibility, we will reach out knowingly that they are requiring communication in respect to FMLA or a medical leave.

So we have to have knowledge of it, but yes, most definitely we assist a member.

Okay.

And you uh how long have you been supervising Misty Taylor?

Um I'm going to speculate because um I don't have the information right in front of me, but I'm gonna say maybe two to three years.

Okay, could be the third year.

So uh were you aware?

Let's just start with 2025.

Were you aware because of your supervision of Misty Taylor that Mr.

Benitas was ever sent an eligibility notice?

I am not.

Okay.

Now let's move on to the rights and responsibilities notice.

Do you know what that is?

The rights and responsibility notice.

I'm gonna say no.

Okay.

So uh do you know then what the federally required deadline for uh providing a rights and responsibility notice is no okay, and that was true throughout the entire time that you supervised Misty Taylor, correct?

I would have to say at this point, yes.

Okay, I mean okay.

Uh do you know who HRA Baker is?

And just so you know, the rights and responsibility notice is us just notifying a member who's brought to our attention their rights for a leave.

So um if I'm you know, well, do you think it's important for the department to follow federal law?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Now, do you know what an amended certification deadline is?

I don't know what the deadline is now.

Okay.

Do you know who HRA Baker is?

Say it again.

HR I see, I assume this is HR meaning human resources assistant baker.

Do you know that person?

Yes.

Who is that person?

She is our HR assistant in the medical section.

Okay, and you supervise that person as well.

I don't directly supervise her, no.

Who's her supervisor?

Her direct supervisor, Sergeant Misty Taylor.

Does Misty Taylor do uh reviews of HRA Baker?

Yes.

Evaluation reviews, yes.

Yes.

Okay, and do you know if those have been completed?

An object as to relevance.

Yes, the time and place.

Well, since you as far as I know, she's only been supervising here for two to three years.

So that's the time that we're talking about is for the last I guess three years or however long you've been supervising in this department.

To be clear, my objection is to whether or not Misty Taylor evaluates HRA Baker as to how that's relevant to Mr.

Vanita's claims before this commission.

I think it is relevant, but I'm gonna withdraw the question and ask a different one.

Um what ability does people under your supervision have to contact medical providers when it is necessary, they do have the ability.

Okay, when would it be necessary?

It would be necessary, and when you say medical providers, are you talking for the city or for a member?

It's not clear to me who you're referencing.

Let's start with the member, please.

We use no, we would it is typical to cont no, we wouldn't contact a member's provider, it is up to the member to provide the medical section what they need through their own providers.

Okay.

If the medical section was contacting uh a member's medical providers, would that be a violation of policy?

Um typically that would not happen.

I it I'm not gonna say it would be uh violation, it has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Maybe the member it could be a condition that the member has or something, but typically that would not happen.

Under what conditions would it be appropriate?

I can't elaborate on something that's not factual.

So I'm just giving you an example that there is a possibility that it could happen.

I'm not gonna say never.

Okay.

How do you on what basis do you believe that there's a possibility?

If the member may need assistance in talking to their provider, maybe we could articulate things better, but that's a stretch.

I'm not saying that that happened, but I'm giving you an example.

But we would never or should never reach out to a member's um provider without their knowledge or authorization.

Okay.

Do you know uh what an amended certification deadline is?

Objection asked and answered.

The stage.

Okay, do you know what the deadline for an amended certification is?

Objection asked and answered.

But question, she didn't know she didn't know what a minute certification was.

I don't know if she'd have any idea about what the deadline would be and something she doesn't know exist.

So your foundation, I guess, for why she would know that.

There okay.

Certification.

Well, again, again, we went over that you had training in FMLA, right?

And you're the person who's uh supervises the uh department or sorry, the division at the department that handles FMLA, right?

Okay, yes.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

Thank you.

Okay, and so to be clear, we're telling the people of the city of Milwaukee that the person who oversees FMLA doesn't know what the amended certification deadline is, right?

Well, a minute certification deadline can vary.

Oh, okay.

So why do you believe that to be the case?

When you say a minute certification deadline, I mean I don't know.

I don't I don't know.

Okay, I'll move on to another question.

Do you want to know what a designation notice is under FMLA?

The destination notice.

Designation notice.

Well, that's notifying the member of the FMLA.

Well, the the result of the FMLA, right?

Correct.

Okay.

And the city Milwaukee has a form that it uses for that, right?

Yes.

Okay.

And that's got the little logo of City Hall on it, for example.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

I believe I I don't you gotta answer yes or no though, please.

Yes.

Oh, I'm okay.

And there's my knowledge.

Right.

And that form exists uh based on your knowledge of FMLA.

The reason the city has that form is because it's required to have a form substantially similar to the federal form, right?

I can't answer that.

Okay.

So you don't know if the form that the city uses complies with federal law.

Oh, it most definitely does, but use but the form itself, it can mirror something where um different locations might change or alter the logo or something.

So I can't answer your question the way you presented it to me.

There could be additional information added, but definitely not change what's required from the um government.

Okay.

So we're clear that there's a form that the city uses, and that the you believe for some reason that the city form is in compliance with federal law, right?

Yes.

What's your basis for that belief?

Well, there are laws that are written, and we make sure that we are compliance with them.

We have city attorneys that review the form as well.

Okay.

And is the form as you understand is the designation form is that optional.

I I can I can't answer that one.

Well, as supervisor of Misty Taylor, do you believe that the designation form is optional?

Again, I do not administer FMLA.

So I can't answer that.

Have you ever given Misty Taylor of review?

Objection is to relevance.

In regards to what?

Well, with regards to her employment.

Let's start with that.

Again, objection relevance.

Missy Taylor is not at issue here.

Her performance is not at issue here.

What's at issue here is the rule violations for Mr.

Benita's pursuant to 6250.

I'll sustain it, whether or not he have they acted on Mr.

Benitez putting in an FMLA request and what they did with it, how they processed that.

That's important.

Well, now I don't understand your ruin.

If it's I'm not gonna, she she you're asking her to whether she reviews a sergeant in the in the MPD.

Right.

That's a foundational question because the next question is gonna be very clearly.

Um, does she supervise her over FMLA?

Does she review her over FMLA?

Well, you can ask that question.

Well, I'm going to, and once I get to the foundation.

Well, she's already given the foundation.

She does not, she does not review Ms.

Taylor, uh, Sergeant Taylor.

Is that the is that your answer?

You don't review Misty Taylor.

What do you mean by review?

We just I thought went over and I said the word evaluate, and then you said the word review, and if I'm using the wrong language, uh help me out here.

But it the process performance evaluation, yes.

Okay, so you evaluate her.

Yes.

Okay, do you evaluate her in terms with regard to her uh FMLA work?

Again, objection if it's not relevance to Mr.

Benito's claims before the uh FPC at this point juncture.

Well, it is relevant because she's ultimately the one in charge of the area, uh and Miss Missy Taylor works in that area underneath her, ostensibly.

So I'll I think about that answer.

She has to know what she does.

Um the evaluation encompass um all of her duties that she performs.

Okay.

Have you successfully rated her uh with regard to FMLA her FMLA duties again?

Objection, Misty Taylor's performance is not at issue here.

If she hasn't she doesn't do it, then she says she doesn't do it.

If she does do it, what was your evaluation about her knowledge of FMLA function of Ms.