Good morning, everyone.

Morning.

We are continuing in phase one of the Benita's trial.

And are you prepared to proceed?

Mr.

H.

Carcross?

Yes, thank you.

All right.

Please call your witness then.

We call Colin Christmas.

Sir, come right up here to this seat right here.

Remain standing and be sworn.

Raise your right hand.

You solemnly swear to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you guide the matter now before this commission.

I do.

All right, sir.

Please have a seat there.

And then state your full name for the record and spell your first and last name, please.

Name is Colin Christensen.

First name spelled C-O-L-L-I-N.

Last name C H R I S T E N S E N.

All right.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Um Jerry Cross, go ahead.

Good morning, Mr.

Christensen.

Can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Okay.

Um, where do you work?

I work at my own practice kinetics performance physical therapy.

You got kinetic quest.

And what kind of work do you perform?

Speak up in the microphone.

I perform physical therapy.

Uh, if you hold the microphone a little bit closer, they'll get away.

Thank you.

Yes, perfect.

Um, okay.

And what kind of educational background do you have?

So I have a bachelor's degree in exercise sciences, minor in sports nutrition, my clinical doctorate from Carroll University, and then a postgraduate orthopedic residency program with a board specialization in orthopedics.

Okay.

So uh I think I understood most of that, but could you just sort of explain to us generally speaking what what your specialty area is?

Yeah, so I examine and treat neuromusculoskeletal conditions.

Um, so limited to those areas of the human body, neurology, muscular system, orthopedics, um, in a conservative manner.

So physical therapist, I do not prescribe drugs, I do not um perform surgery, it is rehabilitation.

Okay.

And about how long have you practiced uh since you finished your education?

Six years now.

Okay.

And have you come to work with Mr.

Christopher Benitez?

Yes, I worked with him when I was employed at the Aurora Health Systems.

Aurora advocate Aurora Health Systems.

Okay.

And approximately when was that?

That would have been starting in 2020 through 2024.

Okay.

Does the area that you worked in in Aurora?

Does that have a specific name?

Sports Health.

Okay.

And do you know how Mr.

Benitas came to be working with you specifically?

If I recall correctly, he was a referral from a sports neurologist that I worked with.

What kind of injuries or condition did Mr.

Benitez have when he came when you started working with him?

Believe the referral was related to concussion, whiplash, and cervicogenic headaches.

Did you ever come to find uh or learn what the cause of those conditions were?

Um I I recall it was in the history.

I don't have my clinical documents.

I was under the impression they would be available to me.

I understand.

Okay.

Um that means you'd like to look at the medical records.

Correct.

Okay.

No problem.

Um, let me ask you more or less, can you describe what the work that you did with the therapy that you did with Mr.

Benitez was?

Yeah, so in general terms, concussion, whiplash disorders.

It's a progressive treatment of structures surrounding the neck, upper back.

Um treating whatever impairments we tend to find as therapists, that could be mobility restrictions, uh pain with functional tasks and the workers' compensation setting, it's usually related to functional outcomes.

So the objective is to return people to job function.

Um, so that would be conditioning for necessary job tasks in the police force.

Okay.

Uh then what's the process for learning to for tailoring the treatment to the work?

So we when I'm referred a case from say the sports neurologist, I have access to the medical history, the physician's impression, and then I perform my own rehabilitation evaluation in which I will quantify things like range of motion impairments, strength loss, pain with function, say turning the head to scan the environment.

When it comes to cervicogenic and whiplash disorders, these frequently present as people who have deficits in their neck coordination, and they can experience a myriad of symptoms like dizziness, headaches.

And so a lot of rehab is oriented around reducing those symptoms through physical progression of rehabilitation.

So it's all depending on how the patient presents individually.

No.

He's looking at E sixteen, not E9.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Is that what it said on the top?

It says uh E sixteen.

Okay, thank you.

We have we have a people keep package.

Oh, did you really have to be the control?

I did not, but I go right up and get it.

There's no one there.

So the first question I have for you before we go for this, is these documents uh help refresh your recollection about uh the treatment given to Mr.

Benitas?

So I'm trying to locate where my notes are in this document.

Okay.

I see I see there is a physical therapy note, but it appears to be a therapist that was possibly after the course of my treatment with him.

Okay,

Sorry?

You can you you can proceed.

Oh I don't uh I'm gonna ask it a different way.

Sure, I don't no problem.

Um so the can you generally explain what the work that you performed with Mr.

Benitez was?

Yeah, so it would have been related to treating the neck headaches presentation, the uh specific symptoms and impairment findings I can't necessarily speak to without having my own clinical documents in front of me.

Okay, but it would have been related to um reducing pain, headaches, mobility, returning to relevant job conditioning tasks as symptoms allowed.

And what kind of uh what I'm trying to understand is if somebody has headaches and that's impairing their ability to do work, what would physical therapy how would that enable them to get back to work?

So headaches have a wide range of causes in the realm of cervicogenic headaches that refers to headaches which are caused by structures in the neck, the cervical spine, which refer symptoms usually related to joint dysfunction, so tightness in the upper cervical segments in particular, um impaired coordination, so when we get miscommunication between where our head positioning is in space relevant to where we actually are, which is a common symptom after whiplash or headaches, that sensory feedback can cause dizziness and symptoms.

So physical therapy treatment for those things is largely based around restoring joint mobility through things like neck mobilizations, treating painful soft tissue structures, soft tissue referring to muscles, ligaments, connective tissue, so those can be manual therapies, things like mobilization, massage, dry needling.

Um and then there is the element of physical reconditioning, so that is typically termed in physical therapy, neuromuscular reeducation and therapeutic activities.

And those are the tasks where once symptoms have begun to settle, we have to reintegrate function in such a way that does not overwhelm the system and cause symptom regression.

And so physical therapy is typically delivered in a graded progressive manner that evolves session to session.

Does that help clarify?

Yeah, I appreciate that.

So what how can these uh dizziness spells how can that affect a person's ability to work as a police officer?

Well, there's an element of in police work, of course, like it's an element of safety for one between if you're dizzy, you're not necessarily efficient in your environment.

So it's it comes down to like someone's balance and coordination um and confidence with performing the necessary job task of a police officer.

Okay.

Can it cause a person to fall?

In extreme scenarios it can, or it can it's it can make people more likely to trip um in a similar fashion that dizziness wouldn't anyway.

Okay.

And are you able to give us some insight into um how the headaches um would interfere with somebody's ability to work as a police officer?

Largely that's the foundation.

Okay, well, d I mean uh in the course of your job have you had the the opportunity to uh apply physical therapy to police officers?

Yes.

Okay, and have any of those police officers suffered from uh cervicogenital um headaches?

Cervicogenic headaches, yes.

Okay, I appreciate that correction.

Okay.

So on that basis, are you able to explain to us how um uh a police officer suffering from headaches into that condition uh would affect their work performance or ability to work?

Largely relates to quality of life and being able to focus on job tasks if you're in pain or uncomfortable.

Okay, and is that can that uh can either of those conditions uh prevent it in uh a patient from returning to work and performing the job at all?

I suppose it's possible in the in extreme scenarios.

Okay, did uh did you were there any other physical therapies that you uh practice with Mr.

Benitas without being able to reference treatment documents?

I would have to make a general statement about the typical therapy interventions, things like therapeutic exercise, therapeutic activities, coordination training, soft tissue treatment, but it's hard for me to speak to specific interventions without referencing the clinical documents that I wrote.

Got it okay?

Okay, I don't have any more questions for you, thank you.

All right, cross.

Good morning, Mr.

Christian.

Is it Mr.

or Doctor?

Technically, doctor, doctor.

Uh do you prefer if I could either way?

Mr.

is fine.

Okay.

Good morning, Mr.

Christensen.

Do uh you have your clinical notes in front of you today?

I do not, not that I've seen.

Right.

Is it fair to say that you cannot practically recall what you did with Mr.

Benitas?

That's correct.

I treat many presentations like this.

It's hard for me to recall specifics of any one scenario without referencing the clinical record.

Certainly.

Um are you employed by the Milwaukee Police Department?

I am not.

Do you have knowledge of the Milwaukee Police Department rules or standard operating procedures?

I do not.

All right.

Do you uh did Mr.

Christianson to the best of your recollection ever ask you to fill out any FMLA paperwork?

I do not recall.

Okay, thank you.

No further questions.

All right, re uh direct.

No, thank you.

All right, uh then doctor, we have questions perhaps by uh the commissioners.

No questions, none, thank you very much.

Just one.

Uh you mentioned before that uh whatever whatever he was involved with the headaches and his police function that you you felt that uh only in extreme scenarios would would that uh affect his ability to function.

Is that basically the conclusion that you you would make in this matter?

In a general sense, cervicogenic headaches and whiplash disorders have a favorable prognosis with natural history over a course of six to twelve months.

Well, would you classify Mr.

Benitez's cases as an extreme scenario?

Can you remember that?

I don't recall the specifics of how the injury began without the clinical documentation.

Um the severity of which is largely determined by the mechanism of injury, so the speed of the accident, a head trauma, things in that nature.

Well, but I mean the point is that you know you make a determination of whether or not an extreme scenario or it's not true.

Correct.

And and the evaluation would and the assessment would describe if the prognosis was favorable or limited or guarded.

Do you recall any of that information that would tell us uh how you looked at Mr.

Benitez as far as his ability to function and get back to work and this other kind of thing?

I don't recall without the explicit clinical assessment notes.

So I I think I finally found them on page uh nine six nine of this exhibit seventeen.

Nine six nine.

Yeah, yeah.

Do you see?

The medical records, I believe was E17, but notorious for RT.

17?

Yeah.

Nine six nine in the corner.

The bottom right corner.

Which page?

Yeah, it just I mean, the there's always a page number on each page, but it just so happens that the page number in the bottom left-hand corner or right corner is also the page number we're looking for.

969.

But sir, the question is to you is this does this refresh your recollection as to the course of treatment either on that page or the following pages?

Yeah, I'm still I'm searching for my initial evaluation.

I think I'm finding it here.

Yes.

You pull your mic up a little closer, sir.

I will, thank you.

Okay.

So page 1035 is the document date September 6th, 2022.

Okay, how does that help us?

So the under the assessment.

Um clarifies involvement of the neck and the right upper extremity, um, lists the presentation of cervicogenic dysfunction prognosis is rehab potential is good.

Patient will benefit from skilled physical therapy with a moderate complexity.

So the impression of that assessment is at that time, my initial evaluation.

I thought that there would be a favorable prognosis with treatment and physical therapy.

I I'm just trying to understand you you were sort of translating what you were just what you read out.

Correct.

Okay, so reading the assessment and translating from there.

I understood that.

Okay.

And it just anything else, because I don't want to go further than this, but anything else in that section that would help us understand what you were treating Mr.

Benito's for, what his condition was the primary deficits were related to hypomobility in the neck, so neck loss of motion as well as some loss strength in his arms, which is a common occurrence and neck traumas affecting peripheral nerve root structures.

The most possibly the most relevant item of interest as it relates to disability status, is the outcome measure that was performed.

This is a subjective outcome measure, so the patient self-reports their own symptom scores, um, referred to as the neck disability index that you can see on page 1034.

The NDI score was calculated as a percentage of 42% out of 100 with a higher score indicating higher disability, which is where I placed us in the moderate category for prognosis.

Were there any indications of flare-ups?

Flare-ups are not uncommon in these scenarios.

I would have to read some of these further notes to understand the clinical trajectory.

Okay.

And is there anything in the the notes that you see before you that would help us further understand what you understood the cause to be?

Let me review the subjective in the medical history document.

Okay, and are you if you're on another page?

Can you help navigate the commissioners?

So that would be page 1032.

This is from my subjective history report.

Um referencing as well the chart, the general shared chart, which is seen on previous pages.

Uh mechanism of injury was described as a motor vehicle accidents in which a head injury occurred while contacting the roof of the car while on work duty as a police officer.

Thank you.

Is there anything else in those notes before you that would you think would be helpful for the can commission understand uh Mr.

Benita's commit condition or course of treatment?

I'm unsure to what degree therapy terminology is going to elucidate more information beyond the general statement of prognosis and the uh dysfunctions listed from a symptom severity, but I'm happy to elaborate.

I appreciate that.

I mean, and I think you've been very helpful at translating so far.

So if you could at least attempt to translate what that uh what that means, I would thank you.

From a prognostic standpoint or like a symptom standpoint?

Both, please.

Okay.

Come down to the neck mobility loss.

Um in the cervical spine, the averages that I'm seeing here, roughly in the realm of like a 50 to 60 percent of normal, so a 40% deficit.

Okay.

And are you able, based on your knowledge and experience, able to tell us how that would affect uh a police officer's work performance as you understand it?

So a normal range of motion that's considered effective for tasks that require you to scan your environment, say operating a motor vehicle, um, assessing a situation around you.

We prefer to see neck rotations above 50 to 55 degrees in either direction.

At evaluation, we were at roughly 40 degrees and 48 degrees, respectively.

So anywhere between a 10 to 20 degree deficit upon initial encounter.

The deficits have mostly to do with affecting safety with environmental scanning and ensuring that you can observe your surroundings efficiently without headaches or dizziness.

And does those does that help us understand better what we were talking about about headaches or dizziness?

Correct.

The objective being to alleviate that for greater ease of function.

Okay, and what I'm saying is do these notes help us understand to what extent Mr.

Benita specifically was suffering from headaches or dizziness?

Yes.

Can you explain that to the commission, please?

So the patient presented at initial evaluation with reduction of his neck motion, a headache severity that was reported at as an average of I don't see the specific numeric pain rating score pulled forward that sometimes is a checkbox that occurs in the chart, not necessarily always written.

Um I would say, like the the net sum of deficits suggest that we are sitting in the realm of like roughly like what would be considered 60% of normal upon initial intake as it relates to pain severity motion, dizziness symptoms with a moderate complexity, which is usually a combination of the self-reported disability and the neck disability index and um the sum of like where we see deficits in the evaluation.

Okay, and can you help us understand what that 60% number would mean in terms of performing a police officer's job?

So a 60% deficit would typically only preclude someone from the uh more physically intense aspects of the job.

Um typically, like, and this isn't speaking in a generality, but in terms of like the symptom presentation at initial evaluation, it's not uncommon that people are cleared for light duty to begin with work return.

Um, and then physical performance testing is typically what clears the return to full function beyond that point.

Do you do you have any experience with light duty at the city of Milwaukee?

Um, not I'm not familiar with specifics of what that entails.

Okay.

And um my question though is the this is there a one size, is there one specific set of um accommodations or restrictions that would that fit for everybody?

Not for everybody.

There's typically it's based upon symptoms and impairments, and this and the impairments here, the the restrictions that are most commonly going to be given are typically lifting restrictions as it relates to the demand on the soft tissues of the neck and the shoulders.

Those are common headache and dizziness generators and cervicogenic rehab, and so we typically control those as aggravating factors in the early phase of rehab.

Okay, but it is it is it fair to say that the primary goal of the physical therapy or one of the goals of the physical therapy is to reduce the headaches which are impairing the ability to work.

That's correct.

Okay.

I don't have any more questions.

Thank you again.

All right, sure.

Dr.

Christensen, can you keep your finger where you were there?

Um is the date of that initial evaluation that you were just looking at.

I believe it's on page 1032 to 1037, I believe is what you were testifying as to ten thirty-two, you said they should be in your hands, I think.

Date of the initial evaluation was September 6th of 2022.

Okay.

And the prognosis was that Mr.

Benitish uh had a good prognosis.

Is that my understanding?

That's correct.

All right.

Um, you also indicated that the NDI was self-reported.

Yes, that is what we call a subjective outcome measure.

So a patient would rate their symptoms on a on a scale, typically a liker scale of low, moderate, severe, high.

Okay.

Um within the lifting restrictions that you would normally give, uh, would that also include the lifting of small children?

Typically, typically lifting restrictions are related to like 50 pounds or above.

So it depends on the small size of the child.

Gotcha.

Understood.

Okay.

I have no further questions.

Any questions?

I have no questions.

Thank you.

No questions.

No questions.

Do you consider his injuries to be uh permanent in nature?

It's hard to say over the course of how things have evolved.

Um at the time of initial evaluation, my note reads that my prognosis was that these would resolve over the course of six to twelve months.

And did you see him at the end of that six to twelve month period to see whether or not they did resolve?

I did not.

It appears that my care transitioned to another therapist, possibly related to when I left the Aurora systems and opened my own practice.

He didn't follow you to your own practice, he stayed with Aurora as far as you know.

That's correct.

At the time he was working with the concussion network at Aurora, so his primary um attending physician was a neurologist, and I was acting in support of that care plan.

Any any follow-up questions from either of you?

No.

All right, doctor, thank you very much for your coming to see us today and uh for your information.

Okay.

Good.

All right, thank you.

You're free to go at this time.

All right, uh your next question.

Mr.

Taylor.

All right, please remain standing.

Sounds weird to tell the truth, the whole truth got the managed out before this commission.

Yes.

Right.

Yes.

Full name is Misty Taylor.

And it's spelled M-I-S-T-Y, last name T-A-Y-L-O-R.

Yes.

M-I-S-T-Y.

T Y.

Right.

Reset.

Good morning, Sergeant Taylor.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Where do you work in the Milwaukee police department?

I'm assigned to human resources, the medical section.

Okay.

And uh is it fair when sometimes they refer to you as the medical section?

Is that fair?

I'm a person, but I work in the medical section.

Yes.

Anyone else who works in the medical section with you?

Yes.

Who is that?

Uh human resources assistant Nancy Baker.

Okay.

And then office assistant Danielle Aaron.

Can you spell that last name?

Aronson, A-R-E-N-S-O-N.

Okay.

And when did you start working in the medical section?

September of 22.

Okay.

Before that.

Or actually, I'm sorry, September of 23.

I apologize.

Okay.

Before you were moved to the medical section, where did you work?

I had several different work locations, but um I was assigned to district number six.

Oh, I was assigned to the Milwaukee police department, district number six.

Okay.

That's uh for lack of a better word, a regular police officer.

I'm a police sergeant.

A sergeant, okay.

Got it.

So um how long were you an officer before that?

Before becoming a sergeant?

Yes.

Um, seven years.

Okay.

Um what's your educational background?

I have an associate's degree in police science.

Um, do you before being assigned to the medical section?

Did you receive any training?

I did.

Specific to the medical section?

Yes.

Okay, what was that training?

Uh HR um training uh basically FMLA training from Johnny Nelson.

Um Johnny Nelson works for uh the Department of Employee Relations.

So when you mean training, you you mean Johnny Nelson trained you how to do the job.

Correct.

He's the uh administrator for the department, he's a coordinator, the FMLA coordinator for the department of employee relations.

Got it.

Yes, Nelson N-E-L-S-O-N.

You're welcome.

Well, uh do you know what the FMLA, who the FMLA administrator is for the city of Milwaukee?

I am the health and safety officer, and I approve and review FMLA.

So that's my position as a health and safety officer.

I just don't have that title.

Got it.

Okay.

So uh you are the health and safety officer, that's fair for the police department.

Okay, but uh are you aware of any position called the uh FMLA administrator for the police department?

No.

Okay, and you're not aware of any paperwork that would identify you as the FMLA administrator.

Uh if you're speaking of the actual documents, the medical certifications, those come from the city.

I do notice that they do say FMLA administrator.

Sure.

And since I'm obviously administrating and reviewing all FMLA, it'd be that's where I would sign.

So I could see you seeing that title of FMLA administrator.

So why is that obvious to you that that you have the authority to be the FMLA administrator for the city of Milwaukee police?

Objection, Miss States testimony.

Over rule, you may just back.

Okay.

Um well, I'm the designee for the chief, so I basically have the authority to review and um make sure that I have all the pertinent information to go ahead and approve FMLA for people's needs.

And how do you know that?

What do you mean?

How do I know?

How do you know you're the chief designate?

It's just an assignment that I was given, and it says that in the FMLA that um the person who's in charge of the medical section is a designee of the chief.

Okay, so this is in the SOP, correct.

SOP for FMLA.

Well, not no, um, for the medical section responsibilities.

Okay.

Yes.

Do you know what that SOP number is?

I would have been relevance.

Go ahead.

Do you know what the no, not exactly what the number is, but if I were to review the SOP, I could show you.

When was the last time you reviewed that SOP?

What SOP?

There's several.

The one that authorizes you as the uh chief's designee to make determinations on it FMLA.

Um gosh, I review it all the time.

People ask me questions.

I I refer to it a lot.

Okay.

Yeah.

Now let's go over um F the FMLA process.

Okay.

Okay.

And um what is an eligibility notice?

Uh a notifying you that you're basically eligible to apply for FMLA.

Okay, and what's the city's policy for eligibility notices?

So we you have five days.

So once an employee has a need and notifies us, we have five days to make sure that they have all the eligibility, which would be a year of service.

Um, and with state law, you have to have a thousand working hours with federal law, you have to have two 1250.

So we look at all of that, and then once we notice that the employee has that, then we say, hey, you are eligible to apply.

Okay, that's pretty common, right?

Yes.

Okay.

And then uh what's a rights and responsibilities notice?

It's a notice that we provide to the member to make sure that they understand that they have obviously the rights, you know, to apply for the FMLA, and then the responsibility is to make sure they adhere by any instruction that's needed when we need documentation to be provided.

Okay.

And what's the deadline for that?

There are several different kinds of deadlines.

So basically, if you apply for FMLA and you know, we notify you within the five business days that you're eligible, then that member we put a date on there and it's we give them like 15 days.

So we'll put a date on when we need the information once we get that information.

If there's anything that needs to be adjusted or clarified, we request that information be given to us within seven days.

Okay.

And then um, do you do the eligibility notice for every time somebody uh you believe somebody might qualify for FMLA?

If they notify us that they need FMLA, yes.

We have to do that, yes.

So only if they notify you, is that fair?

Yes.

And um what about a formal written designation?

Do you uh what's the policy for that?

I'm sorry, can you repeat?

Do you uh let's say that someone applies for FMLA?

Okay, there's an outcome for that, right?

Yes, every time.

Yes, okay.

How does the department communicate that outcome?

In regards to whether it gets approved or denied.

Is that what you're asking?

I'm sorry.

I I thought we just went over that every time somebody files for FMLA, the department there's an outcome.

Yes.

Okay, so how does the department determine that outcome?

Whatever it is, whether it be an approval or denial, we notify them um in writing.

Every time.

Yes.

Got it.

And why do you do that?

So that they know if they're approved or not.

Okay.

And is that called a designation notice?

Is that called something else?

Um, we send out an email to the employee um personally and let them know, hey, you've been approved for FMLA.

Um, and we send a copy to the district's boss and let them know, hey, this member has been approved for FMLA.

Okay.

Is there anything any particular form that that email uh follows or something else?

Yes.

So once the member gets approved, we send a copy of the PM6E, and then um with the dates, or if it's intermittent with the dates that the doctor approves it.

So there's two different kinds of ways we send it.

Um so yeah.

And you said something PM something, right?

It's a PM6E, yes.

That's six what E.

Okay.

PM6E as an Edward.

Okay.

And yes.

Yes.

Okay.

And uh what is the purpose of this six E as an Edward form?

Well, that's the official members documentation that they are requesting to apply for FMLA.

Okay.

So that's just the application form, right?

Right.

And then also the approval is on there, my signature, once I have everything.

Okay, so uh you returning that form signed, that would be a designation notice as you understand it.

No, that's that would be separate.

Okay, so what's a designation notice as you understand it?

Well, that's it's exactly that.

It's just notifying you that you're approved for FMLA.

Right.

Um I'm guessing sometimes people aren't approved for FMLA.

Is that true?

That is correct.

Okay.

So what happens then?

Then we notify them that they're not approved in the reason being.

Okay, and how do you do that?

In writing.

Okay.

And any particular form that that writing uh is follows?

Yeah, the PM6E instead of approval, there is a denial.

Okay.

And then there's room for me to put why it was denied.

And then um, yeah.

So we do the same format as approvals.

We send an email to the um employee who's requesting it as well as their supervisor.

Okay.

And I just want to clarify because again, you said email, but when you send an email, the emails contains a form, right?

That is correct, yes.

Okay.

And again, that form is called PM6E as an Edward.

Yes, correct.

No problem.

So um have you ever come to work with Chris Benitez?

I have never worked with him in regards to police work, like at a district, no.

Okay, any other kind of work.

No.

How about did he ever come across your way in the medical section?

Yes.

Okay.

When did that happen?

Uh when I started in the medical section.

Right away when you started, right?

You were brand new when that happened?

Yes.

Yeah, that was your fact your first month, right?

Yes.

And um how many before Mr.

Benitez, how many other um FMLA requested you handle at that point?

Um, I can't give you an exact number.

I mean, yeah, don't how about a number?

Can you give us a number?

I I can't.

I'm sorry, I don't have so sitting here today.

You can't think of any other cases that you handle before Mr.

Benitez.

That's fair.

Objection, mistake's testimony.

Stay.

Okay.

Can you identify any other cases uh other than Mr.

Benitas that you handled as the medical section uh officer prior to handling Mr.

Benitez?

That's the same question, right?

Just worded differently.

I'll keep that in mind for future reference.

Can you kindly answer the question?

I've got to object and request that Mr.

Hitchcock cross, not the Lieber or Badger witnesses, please.

Before Mr.

Benita's, did you handle any other medical family leave type requests?

Yes, sir.

You don't you know how many?

I don't know how many.

Okay.

Do you know how before um Mr.

Benita's disposition?

Do you know how many other dispositions you were involved in?

Objection foundation.

I don't she doesn't.

She already indicated that yes, with you were getting redented a little bit now.

Hmm.

So the first question was about uh handling FMLA, and the second question is now about dispositions.

You recall it, how many dispositions just before Mr.

Benitas?

That's right.

I can't recall.

Okay.

All right.

So um let's talk about when Mr.

Benitas first came to you.

What what what happened?

So there's been several times.

So let's see.

The first time um I Christopher Benitez was brought to my attention was in regards to him being limited duty, um, which I was like, yep, he's limited duty, full time, limited duty.

I had a supervisor call me and say, Hey, I have a question.

It was Lieutenant Hallman, she's from uh planning and ops.

She's like, I have employees asking me or telling me that Officer Benitez is working overtime, full duty in a uniform at my events, which I can attest to, and I'm like, okay.

She's like, but officer is saying he's going back to the district and working limited duty and saying he can't work as a full duty police officer.

And I'm like, what?

So I checked the I verified.

I looked at, you know, Mr.

Benitas's obviously his um current update, and I looked and I saw that he indeed was limited duty.

I said he is not supposed to be working full full duty at any over a time assignments.

I said, No, that's that's a problem.

I said, So I will have to address this, and she's like, Yeah, I will make sure he doesn't sign up for this since he's limited duty, like time and a half special operations.

Like time and a half special operations, he's working in a full duty uniform, but then he's going to his district and saying he's limited duty.

I said, wow, yeah, no, he I said I have a doctor's note here that says he's limited duty, which means he should not be working in a full duty capacity at all.

Um so that's the first time Officer Benita is brought to my attention.

Okay.

So somebody and I this lieutenant, where did what section does she work in?

Uh planning and operations.

So she handles all the overtime special events like the Milwaukee Bucks games, um, summer fast, all you know, all uh operations, which is time and a half.

So you get paid time and have to work them in a full duty capacity.

Okay, why is that significant?

Because he's limited duty and he shouldn't be doing that.

His doctor is telling him one thing and he's not following the directions of his doctor.

I got it.

Uh it's Lieutenant Elizabeth Hallman.

Hallman A L L M A N Welcome.

Do uh Milwaukee police officers do they assign themselves to the duties?

When they sign up for overtime, it it's uh in regards to the overtime operations that he was working extra full time.

That is something that you're picked to do.

Can you answer my question?

Yes, what was your question?

I'm sorry, I thought that was it.

My question was do Milwaukee police officers pick their assignment.

No, they're assigned by their supervisors.

Okay.

And do the supervisors, are they the ones who do they do you when a person goes on light duty?

What uh responsibilities does the medical section have, if any?

Well, depending on what their limited duty for, uh, we have a lot of responsibilities if they're limited duty because of a on-duty injury, off-duty injury.

Um, there's you know, we have the responsibility of monitoring it, making sure that we get all the medical documentation and um the doctor's recommendations and clarifying anything if need be.

Okay.

Do you have any responsibility to make sure that people aren't assigned to inappropriate uh duties?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

And one would think that part of your responsibility is to make sure that those people aren't respond uh assigned to inappropriate duties before they're assigned to inappropriate duties.

Is that fair?

I have to be notified though.

I mean, that's we got 2,000 members on the Milwaukee Police Department.

I'm one person, so a notification would have to be brought it have to be brought to my attention.

Oh, okay.

So we're we now can say, in fact, that it was the Milwaukee police department that was assigning Mr.

Benitas to uh non-limited duty activities, right?

Objection to formula question that's argumentative.

Overruled.

So answer right.

You can yes, absolutely.

So I'm sorry, can you just repeat the question?

I apologize.

No problem.

So we we can now say that it was the Milwaukee police department that assigned Mr.

Benitas to something other than light duty.

True.

Well, at he volunteered to do that, it's a voluntary position.

So he signed up to do it.

So it wasn't like a sergeant assigned him to do it.

He volunteer he volunteered, so he went online and applied to do this position, and this supervisor is assuming that he would be full duty.

That's the you know, the assumption when people apply for full duty positions.

The assumption is that this officer is full duty.

So it when this when Officer Benitez was limited duty, he applied for full duty, went and worked the full duty, and then that was the question of the supervisor calling me.

Like I said, people notify me of things.

So there's really no way of finding out unless a notification is made.

So that's where she's calling to say, Hey, I have officers that are saying why is Officer Benita's working limited duty, but working full duty at overtime events, and she called me and informed me that that's what was brought to her attention.

I then informed her that he cannot do that.

Um, because he is, you know, he is a limited duty personnel, and she did not approve any more of those.

Okay.

Was there a reason that my question couldn't be responded yes or no?

Well, yeah, there is an explanation.

So why your question was did the Milwaukee police department assign him to this position?

And yes, but it's because officer Benita's requested it.

Oh, okay.

So again, back to the responsibilities of the medical section.

Does the medical section require to notify supervisors of uh somebody's status unlimited uh somebody's status on limited duty?

Yes, at the at their division where they work.

Okay.

Anywhere else?

No.

Why not?

Because that's his responsibility not to sign up because he knows his limitations and he's provided limitations, and for him to go and sign up for overtime, that's something that he chose to do.

Okay.

Were you are you aware that that he was uh ever assigned to full duty for two days a week?

No, so that's the problem.

He was not, he was limited duty the whole time.

Once this was found out, then he tried to provide, or he didn't try, he did.

He went to his doctor and um had his doctor say that he could work full duty for two days and then limited duty for three days.

Uh okay, how do you know that?

Because I received a med note.

Okay.

And how do you know that he did that afterwards?

Because of the date and the contact time that I was contacted.

Got it.

Okay.

And then just in terms of the med note, would that have settled the issue then?

No.

Why not?

Because he was limited duty working full duty.

So then after that was found out to avoid any obviously repercussions from you know, doing not following, you know, his own rules, he provided something that would kind of make that wash away, I guess, so to speak, by saying having this doctor say, Oh, he can work two days full duty.

But that's that's a problem for the department.

That's a liability issue, if you think about it.

Like, how are you able to work two full days but then be limited duty?

Like, we can't put you honestly, put you on the street if you have to be limited duty for three three days.

Like that it didn't make sense.

So we need a clarification on that.

Okay.

What lawyers did you consult to help you form your opinion that it was a liability?

Objection, the bare minimum attorney client privilege.

Just stained.

Did you consult any attorney?

Same objection.

Did you consult anybody to help you determine whether or not you uh that whether there was a liability issue?

Yes, I talked with Pamela Roberts.

Oh, okay.

That's your supervisor, right?

Yes.

Okay.

And to be did you mention Mr.

Benita's name specifically when you talked to Pamela Roberts?

I'm sure I did, yeah, to show her the documentation.

Okay.

I'm sorry, you said you showed her the documentation.

Yes.

Which documentation was that?

The med note that he provide that Officer Benita's provided.

What was the purpose of showing uh your supervisor this med note that Officer Benita's provided?

Well, the purpose of me showing her that was to let her know that I needed clarification on this because I believe this was a liability issue for the department that he can work three days full um full duty or two days full duty or three days full duty, whatever way that was.

I'd have to look at the mend note to look exactly what dates.

But um, there was days where they said, Yeah, he can go on the street and be a full duty officer, but there's someday that he needs to choose not to be.

Um, and then he has to be limited duty, and that for the department is a liability.

We can't just send somebody out that has obviously restrictions and that something is not quite right that he can't be full duty, send him out.

Um it it doesn't just a liability for the member for the department.

We don't want to put anybody in that position.

Okay.

Um, did you how did this meeting with Ms.

Robert take place?

Was it a physical meeting?

Were you in person?

Um, gosh, that was years ago, but yeah, I assume it was, yes.

She's her office is right next to me.

Wait, before you went into that office, did you have an opinion as to the whether or not the city could be liable for this issue?

Just in the terms of uh Miss uh Sergeant Taylor's not a uh attorney, and any kind of legal conclusion that would be drawn from that would be my objection.

The state.

Well, it can I respond?

Can I respond to the objection?

Well, okay.

So uh to be clear, she's repeatedly said that this is a liability.

So we're trying to figure out what is the basis for her on belief that this is a liability.

So she's she felt it was, then she checked with her supervisor, Pam Roberts apparently that solidified the idea that it was a it was a type of a liability issue.

Where it went from there, I don't know.

We haven't got that far.

Oh, okay.

But that's your testimony that you felt it was, and then you went to Miss Roberts.

I believe that was, yes.

Oh, okay.

All right.

And so what what sources of information helped you form that belief?

Well, I mean, the doctor put limitations on him three days a week, and then he can work full time two days a week.

It just would be a liability putting an officer on the street that I know has to be limited duty three days.

That does that it's like, why is he limited duty for three days and then two days he gets to be full duty?

And it's just coincidental that this came right after the um observation that he was limited duty and working overtime full duty.

So I mean, there's just a there are a couple different reasons why um it just wasn't something I had to get more information in regards to that medical documentation and why the doctor, why the restrictions are three days and two days off.

It was just too much of a liability for the department and for the member, like I said.

Now, I believed you said something like it was a coincidence or too much of a coincidence that he provided a medical report after you asked him for a medical report.

Did I understand that right?

No, no, it was coincidental that we had found out that he was a limited duty personnel at district one, and then he was applying for overtime to work time and a half in full duty um in a full duty position, and then after that, uh we received a note that he could work two days full duty and three days limited duty.

Well, did you talk to him about that issue before you got the note?

Yes, yeah, okay, multiple times.

And that was the basis that you thought it was a coincidence.

I guess, yeah, sure.

I mean, it was a coincidence for the fact that yeah, he didn't he was he did not provide any documentation that I was requesting um until then, then it was provided that yes, that that was yeah, correct.

Well, wouldn't you expect after you've talked to somebody about providing medical information that they would then provide you medical information?

Yes, but Benitas did not do that often.

Okay, so that the time that he did do that, that then you suspected him for doing what you asked him to do, fair.

No, that was the first time I've ever had a dealing with him.

So that's how it started.

Um, but in but after that, I could never get anything out of Benita's.

So it was a it was a you later learned that it was a coincidence.

No, no, no, no.

So that no, that's not.

I'm just saying it was a coincidence right after the fact, the first time that I dealt with him that he provided medical documentation after he was told he can't work full duty when he has doctor's excuse that says he has to be limited duty.

Well, okay, but help me out.

Yeah, because I thought your previous answer told us something like uh it was a coincidence that he had provided this because he hadn't provided medical documents when you had asked him before.

Did I misunderstand that?

Yes, you did.

So he provided he had medical documentation that he provided that had said that he had to be limited duty.

So I knew that about him.

He was on limited duty, which was fine.

So this and this is your first interaction, yes, and you ask him for medical records and he provides you with medical records, right?

So no, it he all right.

So basically, sorry.

Um, so he had medical documents.

Yeah, is he asked you for medical records or you asked him for medical records?

Just that's just the question.

Is that a fact or not?

No, no, no, no, I did not ask him.

He provided that after I talked to him about him being limited duty and he cannot work full duty.

Okay, that's when he provided it.

Got it.

So after you talked to him about the he provided you substantiation for him working two days a week full time, correct.

Well, not substantiation, these were new recommendations.

So he had previous obviously restrictions, what recommendations that he had to be full duty full time, and then after um it was found out that he was on his own time working overtime, time and a half in a full duty capacity.

At that point, is when we addressed it with them, then after that is when he provided medical documentation that he could now work two days and then um three days limited duty.

Okay, and that's the coincidence.

Yes, yes, thank you.

And then uh I I just also wanted to help me understand you were explained to us before about the possible liability.

Yes, okay.

And is the coincidence does that tie in with the liability, or is the coincidence and liability separate?

No, it's a coincidence that he provided this med note after we told him he cannot do that.

Okay, and then um in regards to it being a liability, it's a liability for himself and the department, either your limited duty or your full duty.

You can't be both.

So if you're not well enough to go out on the street some days, how can you be well enough to go out on the street?

Just a couple, and what day?

So I needed clarification, and that's when I requested clarification from Officer Benitez.

Got it.

Um, are you do you have a medical degree of any kind?

No.

Okay.

And are you an attorney, the lawyer?

No.

Okay.

So fair to say you you're not uh an expert in what liability is, right?

Correct.

Yes.

And you also have a medical basis to understand why Mr.

Benitas could be on off duty or full duty two days a week and limited duty three days a week.

Objection asked and answered.

Well, this is just a different question.

I'll overrule the objection.

I'm sorry, can you ask?

Uh you don't you don't have a medical foundation to know why Mr.

Benita's to know that he could not be working full duty two days a week and light duty three days a week.

True.

True.

Yeah.

So ultimately, your power to make these decisions doesn't come from expertise.

It comes from you being your belief that you've been designated this position by the chief, right?

No, I'm I'm able to ask for clarification on medical documentation if someone wants to be limited duty with the Milwaukee police department.

And that's what I did.

I needed clarification on his restrictions.

And then he gave it to you.

He did not.

He gave me um a different doctor's note.

Uh he gave me a doctor's note from a different doctor, or actually, he gave me the same doctor's note.

Um, the same exact doctor's note from the same doctor with no changes.

Okay.

Um then um, if I can recall, he I did receive a note from a different doctor.

That's the coincidence one, right?

There's I don't understand what the coincidence one means.

Well, you told us that he gave you a coincidentally gave up, gave you.

I mean, when you say coincidentally, right?

Let's be clear.

You mean that it it was uh you didn't really believe what he was saying, right?

That it he was just doing to pull something over on you, right?

No, nothing like that.

It's it's a it's a fact.

So you you get, you know, officer Benitez was told, hey, you can't do this, and then the next day he supplies medical documentation that says that he can be full duty two days and then you know, limited day limited duty three days.

So I need a clarification from the doctor because like I said, I believe that's to be a liability for himself and for the doctor.

What if he I mean for the department?

Okay, what if he went out on in the squad when he wasn't supposed to?

I mean, what day was supposed to be limited duty, what day wasn't?

I mean, it none of it made sense.

So I needed clarification, and I'm I am allowed to ask for that.

Got it.

So the you believed that uh it was a liability before you got the coincidental medical uh document, right?

I'm sorry, this coincidental thing is getting me.

Um, so the coincidence is that he provided something, a doctor's note.

That's the only thing.

So I know you're like you're kind of heavy on that, but in regards to my belief that the department and he that there was a liability for the both of them, that that's that's where I'm saying that was my belief where I have the ability to ask for clarification.

Do you recall what my question was?

I'll be happy to repeat it.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

My question is simply this.

Yes.

Do you when uh you got this coincidental medical record?

Did you believe that there was a liability for the department for him working two uh days full time a week?

Yes, I believe there was a liability.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Yes.

Now, after you got this medical uh coincidental medical record, did you still believe did that change your opinion anyway?

No, I just wanted facts.

I needed to make sure that the department was gonna be okay and that officer Benita's was gonna be okay.

I could not fathom putting him in a squad car when he has to be limited duty a couple days.

What day do I know?

Like it didn't make sense, and I needed clarification for the restrictions.

Okay, I got it.

Yeah.

So what a I I mean you you're after you got the medical, the coincidental medical report, again, it was the the issue was that you couldn't envision Mr.

Benita's being in a squad car.

Did I understand that right?

No, you did not.

Okay, help me out then, please.

So I stated that I didn't want a liability for the department or for officer Benita's to get injured because it was not clarified in this note what days how this needs to be uh held out.

So I need a clarification from a doctor to make sure I know what the restrictions are because you can't be limited duty and full duty at the same time.

That doesn't make sense.

Where do you form this belief that you can't be limited duty and full duty at the same time?

Well, this is the thing.

If you're what there's nothing written, it's just two days a week and three days a week.

So he can pick whatever he wants.

Um, basically, we we have nothing.

We don't understand it.

So it's a liability for him in the department to put something on documentation that says that he can work three days a week and two days full duty.

What is that?

What what are his restrictions?

What are his limitations?

We need to know what that is.

And the the two of those are contradicting.

Got it.

So the problem with the the reason why you can after you got the medical record, the coincidental medical record, that you continue to believe that that didn't change your opinion on liability.

Uh was because it didn't uh identify what days of the week he should be working full time and what days of the week he should be working uh light duty.

Did I understand that?

Objection compound.

I'm gonna overrule the objection.

Do you understand the question?

Yeah, it was yeah, and my answer to that again is yes, it was contradicting.

The doctor contradicted whether he can be full duty or limited duty, you can't be both.

So we needed to know, and we need to make sure that we put him out the right way as well as um the department.

So there was two responsibilities that I had to maintain here, and I needed clarification.

I understand that.

Did you um send Mr.

Benidez an FMLA um eligibility notice at that point?

No, he didn't request any FMLA.

Well, didn't you know he was eligible for FMLA at this point?

No, he because why would he be?

I mean, he you gotta ask to be, he didn't ask for FMLA, he didn't there wasn't a need, but he was able to work.

Okay, do you know what an accommodation is?

An ADA accommodation?

Yeah, yes.

Okay, what is that?

Well, it's where an employee notifies us of a need that they need, whether I've worked with several of them, whether it's they need a different office chair or they need um you know a keyboard, certain keyboard or something in a squad car.

So there's many type of um accommodations, hearing aids I've dealt with.

So yeah, I do know what an ADA accommodation is.

Great.

Can I can different days of the week schedule?

Can that be an ADA account?

Yes, yes, it can.

And exactly that you'll agree with me that this uh the the medical coincidental medical record that Mr.

Uh Benita's provided to you was asking for him to be on a different schedule.

Yes, okay, and then so you're the how what did you do, if anything, to determine how the department could accommodate that request?

That's why I asked him and gave him the opportunity to provide a medical note that would tell me what his restrictions are because we do want to accommodate him.

We don't want to send him out there because of the contradicting medical note that I received from his doctor.

Okay, so you again, it was you couldn't the accommodation, you didn't take any steps to other than to ask him what days of the week he should be accommodated, fair.

Well, he was accommodated, he got to work limited duty, right?

Um, and at that point I said you can be limited duty.

I just don't want you working because it was uh he he could work his full time shift, but until the doctor provided documentation that he could be full duty or why she's you know why she wants him to be full duty some days and not the other.

Um, he did remain limited duty.

So he was able to work, so we accommodated him, but we still, if he wanted to work in a full duty capacity, we needed to understand that.

So we needed clarification, and that's what I requested from him.

Okay, what was can other than the days of the week, what else was confusing to you about that uh request?

Well, the fact that it's contradicting, it's either your limited duty or your full duty.

So the the understanding of him working, his 80 hours was not an issue.

It was the fact that she thought that he could be full duty and um full duty and limited duty at the same time.

That doesn't make sense.

Yeah, is there a policy or standard operating procedure that supports your belief that you can only be full due that you can't you can either be a hundred percent light duty or nothing?

There is nothing written that states, you know, exactly what you just said, but there is there are policies in place for limited duty, and there is a policy in place for when a member gets injured and they want to be limited duty.

Yeah, there are things where if you're limited duty, we need medical documentation to provide for you to provide that.

Okay.

So my question is very specific, and I want to be very clear that we're getting the answer to that question.

Okay, okay.

Uh and I want to be sure that I understand it.

It's your belief that a Milwaukee police officer can either be light duty or uh I'm saying full duty, but I is that the right terminology?

Yes, and it's either or is that fair?

Yes.

Okay, and and that now I'm asking you, and I thought maybe I did already, so I want to be clear that I have the answer on that.

Is there any policy or procedure that you can point to that supports that belief?

There is a limited duty policy.

Um, that if you're limited duty, as long as we have medical documentation, you can be limited duty, and then full duty officers, yes, it's your job description.

If you're full duty, you have to be able to do all these items.

We don't have a doctor saying he can do all that.

All we have is saying, oh, he can be full duty and part-time.

So I need a clarification from that doctor to help me understand why she believes that he could do be limited duty and full duty.

Does that light duty standard operating procedure state that a person can only be on light duty uh and nothing else?

No, it does not.

Okay.

Does the does that procedure say that a person cannot be partially on light duty and partially unfolded?

Well, we do have, like I said, the police officer description, and how do we know when a police officer description you have all these things you have to be able to do?

But then a doctor saying, but three days a week or two days a week, it's very hard to understand.

So I needed clarification from the doctor.

So there are there is a police officer description on all the things that he needs to be able to do, and for him not to be able to do those a couple days a week, but some days he can, it's just not clear.

That's why I needed the clarification from the doctor.

Okay, so I understand that you believe it's not clear.

I think we we've got so but the question that I'm trying to focus on is what is your support for the belief that something that it's either all light duty or nothing?

Well, and that's what I let you know is that the police officer description um uh entails all the things that he needs to do as a full duty officer.

I don't have any clearance from the doctor because she's saying he needs to still be limited duty some days a week.

So I can't send him out there and say he's full duty.

So yeah, there's documentation that he's able to do all of these things as a police officer.

Got it.

But I can't in good faith send him out there.

I understand.

So it's fair to say that there's nothing that a is it what would a what would a doctor have to show to you to make you deviate from uh your belief that you can only be full uh full time light duty?

Full time or light duty no I then I'm switching that up.

What would a doctor have to show to you to make you think that you could work?

I'm gonna call it hybrid, so partially light duty, partially full time.

So I would need restrictions and more documentation what rather than just two days a week police officer.

I need restrictions like why you know what I mean.

And it's and it asked for that on the forum.

You know, the doctors never really filled a lot of that stuff out, just put two days a week and um three days, but there are restrictions like what is restricting you from doing your job, and so I would need to know all of those things so I can like measure everything in regards to the police officer description and what he is required that he has to do compared to our limited duty policy.

Do you have any training in um police uh police officer job descriptions?

Training, it's black and white.

Oh, okay.

You just read it basically it was what you read, right?

Yeah, absolutely.

I guess okay.

And I mean the I I just want to be clear so that uh because I think we're clear that the doctor signed you had a signed doctor's note saying that he should be working two days a week and uh full duty and light duty three days a week.

Yes, and you just didn't think that was clear enough, fair.

Yeah, it wasn't correct.

Yeah, I needed to know the restrictions, the medical restrictions, so we could abide by them and accommodate him accordingly.

Okay, and did you know what medical restrictions there were uh in place at that point for uh Mr.

Benitez to work uh light duty?

It just said desk duty, light duty.

Okay, desk duty, light duty.

So you I mean, basically you just did when the with the doctor said full duty, you just didn't believe that they meant full duty, fair.

Well, I I always believe exactly what's in front of me.

If it says full duty, it's full duty, right?

So a full duty officer has to be able to do the full the description of a full duty police officer.

Um, but yet she's saying he's three days he could be limited duty.

So I just I need a clarification once again.

Got it.

Okay.

So we're gonna take a break uh for uh take a 15 minute break, and uh we'll come back on the record.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think just chronologically, we're still in like September, your first month at the uh uh at the medical section.

Um when is your next interaction with Mr.

Benita's I can't recall the exact dates.

I mean, I've had interactions with him a lot over the three years I was there.

Okay, what was your next interaction?

I can't recall the exact next okay.

Did he apply for FMLA?

Yeah, he had applied for FMLA for the birth of his child.

Okay, anything else?

Um throughout the course of the three years?

Can you say anything else?

Did Mr.

Benitas ever apply for any other FMLA?

Yes.

Okay, what were those?

Um for his own serious health condition.

Okay.

And when did that happen?

Um multiple times he applied.

Okay.

And then he was also approved.

Um, I want to say in 24, I approved him for his um for the birth of his child.

I also approved him for the FMLA that he was allowed in 2024 for his uh serious health condition.

Okay.

Um did you give him the eligibility notices for each of those events?

So uh Nancy Baker handles all the eligibility notices.

Okay.

Uh she usually gets the information when someone calls or gets the paperwork.

So she'll supply that.

So more than likely, yes, it was definitely given.

Okay.

Did you um send a rights and responsibilities notice for each of those?

Like I said, Nancy gathers everything and sends out all the notices.

She handles the FMLA aspect of gathering everything and getting out all the notices.

So yes.

Okay, what's your relationship to Miss Uh Baker?

Are you a supervisor?

Yes.

Okay.

So I mean, ultimately, you're supervising the this document.

Do you know if the document being sent out was actually sent out?

Yes.

Okay, for all of those FMLA requests.

Yes.

Okay.

How about designation notices?

Were those sent out for all those FMLA requests?

I'm sure they were, yes.

Okay, why do you why are you so sure?

Because Nancy's very good at her job, and I have the utmost faith in her.

She uh knows FMLA and she's been doing it for some time.

So it's Nancy and not you who's responsible for sending out the designation notice.

Is that your testimony?

Correct, yes.

Okay.

What role do you have uh in responding to FMLA requests?

So uh office uh human resource assistant baker, she gathers all the information, sends out the eligibility request, and then once she has everything, or if there's something in question, she'll bring it to my attention for approval, and she'll just say, hey, I've been waiting on this for this person, they haven't submitted it.

I'll sometimes get involved.

Um, but other than that, yeah, she gathers everything, obtains everything, and then I look everything over to make sure everything's legit, and then I just sign off on it if it's approved or denied.

And that's what you did for Mr.

Benitas.

Yes.

Okay.

And again, you signed off on designation notices for Mr.

Benitas.

Also true?

Yes.

Okay.

Now, um did you ever have cause to deny Mr.

Benita's FMLA?

Yes, he didn't provide um medical substantiation or proper documentation for it to be approved.

Okay.

And what what are when what FMLA request are you talking about?

There's multiple.

Okay, and he didn't provide medical substantiation for any of them.

Um well, the ones that were denied, it could be medical substantiation, it could be other documentation, but it's been uh from my recollection, mostly it's medical substantiation that he did not provide if we need it.

Um yeah, correct.

I got it.

And um what is medical substantiation mean to you?

So that is when we receive a we have a form that we utilize um that you talked that you brought up earlier that has the HR administrator thing on on the bottom of it, but we have a form um that it's a medical cert that they supply to their doctor, get it completed for why they are applying for the family medical leave of absence, and then they turn around and give that back to us for us to review.

Okay, is this the PM3 form or EPM E3E?

There's a P PM 7A and a PM 7B because you can take uh FMLA for your own serious health condition, or you can take it for a family member to care for your father, your mother, your um child.

Okay.

So and what what was the number for that form?

It's a PM7A, it's for your serious health condition, your own serious health condition, and then a PM7B.

Seven seven A is the FMLA request form.

Uh it's the med cert, yes, that is provided to their doctor that we get back.

Okay.

And the but the PM6E is an Edwards, that's the designation notice, right?

That is the application um to apply for that that you need FMLA, and that's what the member signs.

He has a supervisor, he has to get a supervisor to sign off on it, and then it goes to us, and then we're the final sign off.

What criteria do you use?

Or let me put this another way.

What training did you receive in determining if a 7A form is complete?

So Johnny Nelson is like I said, the FMLA coordinator.

If I have any questions, um, I usually refer to him, but mostly state statute, RSOP, um, federal um federal guidelines, city ordinances, everything that's there for us to utilize.

So you just consult the law.

Well, yeah, I make sure that everything is yep, legal.

We want to do everything legally and make sure that we're giving people what they need.

Okay.

And you again, have you had any training in researching a statute?

You don't need training for that.

Anybody can do that.

Yes, you know, yeah.

Yeah, have you had any training in researching um the FMLA federal laws?

Training?

Yeah.

I I've reviewed it myself.

Um, nobody's trained me to do a review on federal laws and SOP.

That's stuff that we all should be familiar with.

Yeah, well, in my in my position, anyways.

Okay.

So then uh does the department have any criteria that they publish for how to determine whether the 7A form is complete and satisfactory?

Yeah, well, I mean, it has to be completed in its entirety.

So did you hear my question?

Yes.

Okay, can you answer that question, please?

Repeat it, I'm sorry.

Does the department have anything documented so the members know how to uh how to completely fill a 7A?

It's in the SOP that it has to be completed.

So under in the FMLA SOP, it gives you exactly what's needed to apply for FMLA, and that is the form those forms are there, so they have to be completed in its entirety.

Okay.

And does the um SOP explain to us how uh well, does it say it has to be completed in its entirety, or what does it say?

Well, yeah, I mean it says that these are the forms that are needed to be completed to apply for FMLA.

Why would you not complete a form?

Okay, fair to say that's the basis of your understanding on uh completeness of the 7A form, right?

Sure.

Okay, got it.

So how do you how do you personally determine how come if a form is sufficiently completed?

Well, when I review the med cert, I make sure that there is uh medical facts that give me the reason to go ahead and approve the FMLA so that it's not something that is um an election election kind of thing to have surgery where that's not covered by FMLA.

So I make sure that you know it's any kind of medical um there's medical relevancy in regards to what the need is for.

So okay.

So you get medical facts, and then you make a medical determination if they're uh relevant or necessary.

Is that fair?

Well, long as it's not elective, so like I mean elective surgeries are not um covered under FMLA, it has to be for a serious health condition.

So that's the most important thing.

And the serious health condition has to be articulated by medical facts.

And how do you how do you determine whether there's sufficient amount of medical facts?

Well, usually they'll list the medical condition and then that's fine.

So a diagnosis, yes, correct.

Yes, that's fine for you.

Yes.

Okay.

And that's that's been your guiding, that's been your your your rubric for FMLA completeness throughout your career.

Fair.

Well, no, I mean, you have to the doctor has to complete the form in its entirety, but that is something that's very um important is to list with medical facts, such as you said the diagnosis of why they need the FMLA.

So I mean, but the form has to be completed on like dates and times and conditions, and there's multiple questions on that form that need to be completed.

So if a doctor doesn't put the times on the form, then uh you're gonna return it, fair.

Yeah, I'll I'll ask for clarification, yes.

Doctor doesn't put the conditions on the form, you're gonna ask for clarification.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

What other things does the doctor, if the doctor doesn't put those on the form, are you gonna ask for clarification for?

Well, the form just needs to be complete in its entirety.

If there are things missing, we will ask for clarity on those questions to be answered.

What other things if a doctor doesn't put them in the form, will you ask for clarification?

Can you please answer that question?

Yeah, like I said, there's multiple questions on the form, and they all have to be answered.

Um, in regards to what the need is for the FMLA.

So there's time frames that's important.

Um, medical facts that's pertinent to taking the leave.

So those are just some of the examples of some of the things and the questions that are on that form.

And it's not to be clear, it's not good enough that a doctor says I certify that this person is medically unable to work at this time and should be on uh excused.

Fair?

Correct, yes.

Got it.

And where did you come up with that opinion?

Well, we need to know the reason.

We need medical facts to approve the family medical leave at because there have been times, uh, numerous times where we do get just the men notes and they're like, hey, we're gonna be out three weeks and um I'm having, you know, I'll give you an example, you know, a nose job, and then is you know, is an elective surgery?

Yeah, I just don't like my the way my nose looks.

And so it's not you know something that the doctor is saying you need because of a serious health condition.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Unfortunately, I can't give you, you know, I can't you don't qualify for FMLA, it's for a serious health condition, and that's an elective surgery.

You're choosing to change something, you know.

So I can't always approve people for things like that.

So that's kind of where I'm at when I say I need to know the medical facts and the conditions so I can determine whether or not you're eligible for FMLA.

I got it.

Can you please read back the last question?

Where did you come up with that opinion?

Okay.

No.

Oh thank you.

So um, well, I guess did did you not answer that question?

I I thought I answered it pretty well.

Got it.

So um do you ever go out and give trainings to local physicians on how to fill out medical um forms to your satisfaction?

No.

Okay.

Is there a form?

Is there a instead of instructions uh that lets physicians know how to fill out uh the six E form to your satisfaction?

Well, it's that's my satisfaction, it's for the satisfaction of the laws of FMLA, what how you're entitled for it.

And Officer Benitez has been approved before, so he knows what's needed.

Um, so I don't, yeah.

Anybody other than you interpreting the FMLA laws, uh, either federally or state uh for the department of uh the police department, city of Milwaukee.

Anyone else that's approving it?

Interpreting the laws for the state or federal FMLA for the City of Milwaukee police department besides you.

I can't answer that at this time.

I mean, I don't I'm the person that approves the FMLA and reviews state laws.

I can't tell you what other people think or how they interpret the laws.

That's I can only tell you how I interpret the laws and what I utilize to make sure that I have what I need to approve FMLA.

Okay, let's focus on Mr.

Benitez.

So far you've testified that you consulted with Miss Roberts about Miss Benitas.

Did I understand that right?

About the situation with the excuse, yes.

That was that Mr.

Benito's yes.

Okay, so we can say yes, yes, okay.

So then uh any other times you consulted Miss Roberts about Mr.

Benitas?

Yeah, if there's ever any issues, I would consult with her.

Is that a yes or is that a possibly?

Well, it depends.

I mean, I've had a lot of dealings with Officer Benita's over the three years.

So I mean, no, did I go to her every time?

No.

Once in a while, yes, but I I can't tell you exactly what for.

I know for for the first one that you talked about, the first time I had an interaction with him, I did go to Roberts just to get her expertise.

Okay, so we can say, can we say rather that after the first time that you went to Roberts about Mr.

Benitas, you at least one other time you went to Roberts about Mr.

Benitas?

Yes.

Okay.

How about five other times?

Can we say that?

Yes.

Okay.

And each time that you met with Miss Roberts, did you make it clear that you were talking about Mr.

Benitas?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you feel it's important to tell the truth to this commission?

Yes.

Now, um can you we've had a lot of testimony, uh, which I'm sure you haven't heard about an ODI.

Can you explain to us what ODI means?

Old duty injury.

Okay.

And what is an old duty injury?

It is when a person gets injured on duty, okay, comes back to work, limited duty or full duty, whatever, and then that ailment of injury occurs again and they don't feel good.

And they claim that they have an old old duty injury.

So then they get a doctor to complete information to carry them limited duty or whatever, whatever ADA accommodations that they need submitted.

So and explain to us how the ADA um interacts with the O duty injury as you understand it.

Yeah, absolutely.

So obviously, you know, injured on duty or the like you explained the old duty injury.

Um, if a doctor, you know, submits paperwork and says, hey, this is what we have, and I need this person to, you know, work in the office, no sitting, no kneeling.

Um, can you accommodate them?

You know, and most of the time it's yes, we do have a lot of limited duty positions, which we allowed um officer to be Benitas to be in for approximately three years.

Got it.

Okay.

What are the parameters for uh oh uh ADA accommodations with respect to old duty injuries?

And let's just start with time.

Are there any time restrictions on that?

Well, and I mean, in regards to we accommodate them where when their doctor allows us to, I mean, when the doc when their doctor submits you know, restrictions or accommodations, that's how we're accommodating them.

Okay.

So once again, my question is about time.

Yes, yeah.

And so my what I'm trying to, and maybe you answered it, but I don't I'm not clear.

Are there any time restrictions with regard to accommodating an old duty injury?

Well, we do it as soon as we're able, as soon as we get medical documentation that it's asking for restrictions, we take care of it right away.

Got it.

Yeah.

And then what I'm asking you is are there is there a cutoff period then for old duty injuries?

Well, in regards to um an injury itself, just to give you a history, it's you get 2,080 hours of injury pay per injury.

And there's you can use that whenever.

So you say you have a 25-year career, and in you know, the fifth year you get injured and you have a knee injury, and then 10 years later it it surfaces again.

Um, those are all things that um you get 2,080 hours to utilize after that.

Yes, there's no more injury pay.

Okay.

And what's that what is that belief based on?

It's not a um belief, it's just the fact.

It's something that I've been working with when I work with Corvell.

Corvell gives me that information.

They're the ones who um pretty much order, you know, IMEs, all kinds of different things, and handle all the on-duty injuries.

Okay.

Um I understand that Corvell is a corporation.

Is that your understanding?

Yes.

From Kansas, right?

I don't know where it's from.

Oh, okay.

Is that any part of the city of Milwaukee police department?

No, it's an agency that um the city of Milwaukee Police Department hires um for insurance claims.

I understand.

Does Corvell have any power to write policy or procedure for the city of Milwaukee Police Department, as far as you know?

Well, they give the recommendations to the city of Milwaukee, the department of employee relations, which in turn is for the Milwaukee Police Department.

So, yes, they do.

Okay, and they write policies and procedures, just so I understand your question by recommending things to what departments?

They don't write our policies for the Milwaukee Police Department.

No, no, they whatever policies or whatever they write, that's that's their laws and stuff like that.

So the answer to my question is no.

Okay, the answer to your question is do they write MPDs policies and stuff like that?

No, correct.

Okay.

So then what you were saying other things.

How does that help us understand what uh the answer to my question?

Yep, no problem.

Um, so with Corvell, um they obviously were hired by the Department of Employer Relations, City of Milwaukee, um, Milwaukee Police Department.

So they all work together cohesively.

Um, and in regards to any recommendations, they handle all the on-duty injuries and they provide they they do all the work for pretty much, you know, getting all the paperwork and everything, and deciding if people get injury pay or not.

So they're they're the final say.

So the the basis for your fact, as you put it, that there's 200 2080 hours per injury, that comes from the Corvell Corporation's recommendation.

Do I understand that?

I don't know where how that comes about.

I just know that that is what was given to me.

Um, like I worked with Nielsa, who's no longer on the department, but Jennifer Evans is now the head of it.

And um, I asked, like, hey, because employees ask all the time, hey, I had this injury, can I still get injury pay?

And then I say, Well, make sure you contact your claims rep to see if you have any allotted time.

I'm aware that you get 2080 hours.

Where that comes from, I am not certain because I don't handle the off-duty injury.

Um the determinations.

So are we still saying it's a fact or something else?

Oh, the the fact of the two that well, yeah, that's a fact that I was given by the head of to let people know that's what they're allowed.

So yeah, it's a fact that I was given by gave it to you.

Uh like I said, um, Neil says she was in charge.

She's sorry.

Uh yes, I apologize.

Neilsa, and her last name was um, oh gosh, I forgot she's no longer with us.

But okay, so Niels uh it's uh Riz was it Rosotto?

Yeah, it's probably Neil, but she had two hyphenated last name, but yeah, Neilsa Rosado Jerkowitz, that's it.

I apologize.

So yes.

If I can just interrupt, can you instead of the name, can you tell us what position that person held?

Yes, she was um the department of employee relations um injury coordinator, and she handled like all the injuries for the department and was very, very knowledgeable, and I did get a lot of training from her.

Um, and then the new person that took over, I'm sorry, is Jennifer Evans.

Does either of those people have medical degrees?

I'm not aware.

Okay, any of these people have legal degrees.

I'm not aware.

And I am assuming that none of those people are the chief of police at any time, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Do you believe any of those people are able to write policy or procedure for the city of Milwaukee Police Department?

Um, I believe that they're involved in the process, yes, because they have a lot of knowledge.

So yeah, they're involved.

They would be involved with uh the seventh floor and the command staff.

Yeah.

Makes sense.

Do you have any specific knowledge that they were involved in this case?

I don't.

Okay, how about command staff?

Do you have any specific knowledge of command staff?

I don't.

I can only speak for myself.

Okay.

Well, you know that Miss Roberts was involved, right?

Yes.

Okay.

So did this fact, this 200 uh 2,080 hours.

Did was that ever uh did Mr.

Benitas ever reach that factual limit as you understood it?

I'm unaware.

That wasn't for that's not for us um to decipher.

He has to work with his claims advisor through Corvell to determine that information.

Okay.

Did you ever communicate with Mr.

Benitas about his ODI at any time?

Um I believe I had, yes.

He um, yes.

What was the purpose of that communication?

Well, so an old duty injury, he was saying that he had an old duty injury, but um Corvell had an independent medical exam done prior to that that stated that he does need to remain limited duty um and be able to work five days a week, um, which is his 80-hour work week.

So in a limited duty capacity.

So once that is done by the city doctor, um that's where Corvell is like, no, he doesn't have um, he can be at work, he needs to be at work.

Well, you personally don't believe that Mr.

Um Benitas was injured, do you?

That's not for me to decipher.

I just go with the medical documentation that I get, like you said, I'm not a doctor, so I can't that's a speculation like that.

Okay, well, do you recall writing an email saying that he was allegedly injured at any time?

Yeah, because everything that we do is he you but any time an employee is injured, they're alleging that they're injured.

So that's yeah.

I can't, I wasn't factually there, so I can't say, oh, this happened.

You know what I mean?

This is just I get lots of documentation, like from supervisors saying what happened from different officers that's saying what happened.

So these are allegations of an injury.

Okay, fair.

Uh so my understanding is the only way that you would believe that Mr.

Benitez was injured is if you were uh with him at the time of the injury.

Is that fair?

Well, or if a doctor, you know, says that he was injured.

Oh, okay.

And during the course of your employment at the Milwaukee Police Department, did you ever come across any doctors alleging that Mr.

Benito was injured?

Well, not no, yeah, there was a lot of um documentation, PP 18s that says he was involved in an accident, um, a motor vehicle accident, which is not correct.

Um so I did see that on the report.

Okay, so before we get to that response, can I get at least to be clear that we have a response to my answer?

So my question or my question, my question was Did you come across any uh medical uh documentation uh regarding Mr.

Benitas during the course of your employment at uh Milwaukee police department?

Is it true that the answer is yes?

So I'm sorry, I'm I kind of you kind of lost me.

Can you just ask me?

Clear, I believe, on what a medical uh document is, right?

Yeah, this is this is some kind of communication signed by a medical uh doctor, right?

Yes, okay.

So that we we've got that.

Yeah, did you ever and you we all know who Mr.

Benitez is, right?

Yes, okay.

Did you during in the course of your employment with Milwaukee uh Milwaukee Police Department?

Yeah, we're so far we're all good, right?

Yes, okay.

Did you come across a communication from a doctor regarding Mr.

Benitez?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Now you were giving us additional information.

Can you explain that there were multiple?

Can you explain to how that answered my question?

Well, I was just gonna go on to let you know that I did receive multiple um PPA teens for um this injury that he uh says happened um with a motor vehicle accident that was on the documents, but there was not a motor vehicle accident.

That's what I wanted to get into.

Yeah, okay.

So it do I understand correctly that you're your testimony is that you received medical communication from a medical doctor stating that Mr.

Benitas was in a medical accident.

True or false?

False because you said it was a medical accident.

Did you receive such a communication?

True or false?

False.

Okay.

I don't think you questioned he didn't.

Yeah, I can I can I think you're talking about a medical accident.

You're talking about a motor vehicle accident.

Okay.

Did I then I may I appreciate that clarification?

Sometimes everybody's looking at me in the room for a reason, and I don't get it.

So I appreciate that.

Um I have to say I get it.

I'm just cute.

I I got I knew that was coming.

All right, that's good.

Fair enough.

So look, here's what we're trying to get to is did you get anything from a doctor, a doctor's note from Mr.

Benitez talking about him being in a uh motor vehicle accident?

Yes, okay.

And you have some belief that he wasn't in a motor vehicle accident.

Is that fair?

That is fair.

Okay, why do you believe that you know more than the medical doctor?

Well, it's not that I know more than the medical doctor, but um officer Benitez provided a memo on what happened, as well as his partner that was with him the day that they were in a car and his partner was driving and to avoid an accident did an evasive maneuver um and stepped on the brake, and basically um officer Benitez alleged that he hit his head on the top of the vehicle.

So that is not an accident.

Obviously, a motor vehicle accident is when a vehicle gets struck or you strike something, it could be a property, it could be a person, it could be another vehicle.

Nothing like that occurred.

Okay.

Do we you and I don't dispute that Mr.

Benitez was on duty when this occurred, right?

Well, to be honest with you, um, he says it occurred on a date, and the responsibility of the officer is to provide a supervisor or somebody tell them that an injury occurred on the date that never happened.

He notified a supervisor weeks a couple weeks later, stating, hey, this injury occurred.

So I don't know.

How did you learn that?

From a memo from Officer Benitez.

Okay, when how did you come across this memo?

Um, it was submitted to the medical section because he's saying it happened on duty.

Who submitted it to the medical sergeant?

I don't know who exactly submitted it, but I received it and it was written by Officer Benitez.

Oh, okay.

Um a mysterious person.

Well, it's not a mysterious person.

So the memo itself, that's just the way the department works.

If someone drafts a memorandum for whatever the reason may be, medical or um for whatever their need is, and if it's a medical need, it gets sent to medical so we can address it.

Got it.

Okay.

So uh what I'm now trying to understand is if a medical provider, just the Mr.

Benita's case said he was involved in a motor vehicle accident.

Would that require clarification from you?

I would it's not gonna require clarification for the simple fact that I mean he's saying that he sustained an injury, the doctor is stating that.

So at this point, I'm gonna take it for what the doctor actually says is going on with Benitez.

Um, in regards to him saying that it was the motor vehicle um accidents or incident or whatever the case may be.

Um I can't change what Officer Benitez believes happened and what he discusses with his doctor.

So do you think Mr.

Benitas is lying to his doctor?

Is that where we're at now?

Not at all.

I didn't say that.

I just said I can't control why his doctor puts on the documentation that he was involved in a mortar vehicle accident or incident.

Okay.

Can you control whether or not you um put any credence in what a medical doctor says?

Is that under your control?

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Sure.

Do you?

I mean, it's it sounds like you think you're you know more than than Mr.

Benita's doctor uh regarding his injuries.

Is that fair?

No, that's not fair.

Okay.

Well, for example, Mr.

Benita's physician said he was involved in a motor vehicle accident, right?

And you know that's not true, right?

Yes, okay, got it.

So in that situation, you feel that you know more than the medical doctor, right?

I am not saying I know more than a medical doctor.

That's not no.

Okay.

Now, um what's just uh focus on these doctors' communications that you got, were any of them with regard to request for uh accommodations?

Yeah, restrictions.

That's what those forms are for to ask to be limited duty and not to be a full duty police officer.

Got it, and we're on the same page that that's a request for an accommodation.

Yes.

Okay, just like the request for a different schedule was a request for accommodation.

Yes, correct.

Got it.

Now anytime the department, you as the medical section get a request for accommodation, what do you need to do?

Well, I notify if there's anything in regards to being limited duty.

So what happens is the member submits a memorandum stating, hey, I'm requesting to be limited duty due to the fact that I have this accident.

They provide a PP18.

If it's on duty, which Officer Benitez is saying it was an on-duty injury.

Um he's been providing PP 18s, which is a physician's report.

So there's it's a one-sheet report that has these questions where a um physician is asked to fill everything out that includes the restrictions of the member and the limitations of the member, and that's pretty much the basis of it.

Once we get that, then yeah, we let them be limited duty.

We find usually they can stay in in their same work location, which Officer Benitez was allowed to do.

Um, yeah, and we were able to accommodate them.

Well, okay, so what is there as far as I understood, there's one kind of accommodation, and that's light duty.

Did I misunderstand that?

Limited duty, yeah.

Yeah, that's the accommodation that he had requested, yes.

To be carried out.

Why do you believe he requested to be on light duty?

Well, because his doctor, he provided a doctor note that said he had his um diagnosis have changed a couple of times.

So and that and when you get these uh these requests for accommodations, they're gonna say things like uh limited amount of time working, right?

A limited lifting, for example, right?

Yes, correct.

Okay, uh how much time they can sit for?

Yes, correct.

Uh number of breaks they should be taking.

Yes.

Okay, and that and it's your testimony that those kind of restrictions changed over the course of Mr.

Uh you working with Mr.

Benitas, true?

Yes, okay.

And do I understand again that there's just one accommodation, and that's light duty?

Well, it's not, I mean, no, that's not you're not understanding.

Um, there's not just one type of accommodation.

I mean, I I gave you examples earlier, like about the hearing aids and about desks, and I've done a lot of accommodations, and it doesn't all have to do with limited duty.

No, there's multiple ways to accommodate people in the workplace at MPD that I handle.

Okay, what ways were there to accommodate Mr.

Benitas other than light duty?

That's all he requested.

Okay.

And when did he request this?

Anytime he turned in medical documentation to be carry limited duty.

Okay, and that's the words he used, limited duty.

Well, the doctor did like desk duty or anything that had to do where he couldn't be a full duty officer, it's considered to be limited duty.

Got it.

Okay.

And that would also include the request for working full duty two days a week and light duty three days a week, right?

Yep.

Okay.

Now you know that Mr.

Benitez was sent to a so-called independent medical examination, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Why do you know that?

Uh, because Corvell notified us.

Oh, anything else?

No.

Have you seen them the report?

Uh they give us um information.

They give us a letter after the report comes back, but it takes some time sometimes.

But yeah, they give us a letter letting us know, hey, this member's restrictions are gonna be um like for Benitas.

You know, he he had restrictions when he had his first IME that he could work limited duty five days a week.

Um, limited duty being desk duty, and they gave all like his restrictions.

Um so they always give us the restrictions that come back from the independent medical exams.

Okay, and this the restrictions and what we're talking about, this is in a form of a report by the independent medical examiner.

True.

It's it comes from the report.

So I mean it they take excerpts out of the report and they let us know so that we can handle the accommodations for the member.

Okay.

I think so.

Thank you.

No problem.

What number?

Thank you.

And I'll need one as well for the FPC.

I understand.

Well, thank you.

Yeah.

Oh, we're still waiting.

It's no problem.

Yes, please.

What is this?

Well, this is the next one in order for the complaint.

But you have A B C D.

I don't think we do, do we?

E.

E.

Yes.

Thank you.

Oh no.

18.

We have 17.

That's the E twenty two.

E22.

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

E twenty two.

Now these don't have numbers on the bottom of the pages.

So how are you gonna limit?

Are you gonna wait?

At the top.

So what I have gave them is there are some numbers.

What you have is different from what they have.

And you have E21, so I'll have to get you a larger copy of that.

Yes.

It's the report.

It's E22.

It's E22.

Okay.

Got it.

So it's already it's E22.

So do you have the the document that you have in front of you, Sergeant?

Is that what you were referring to?

No.

Okay, what is that document?

Um it's a doc.

This is an I um an independent medical exam by a doctor, but this is not what's gets sent to us.

Okay.

We get a letter with just the restrictions.

Okay.

I would like you to review that document uh for as long as you need to.

And can you tell us if that document uh again E22 contains a diagnosis of some kind?

Okay.

I'm gonna object.

And this uh this is uh as Ms.

Sergeant Taylor indicated, she's never seen this document before.

Um she's doesn't have the capacity to testify as to it.

And the document speaks for itself.

True.

Are you are you familiar at all with this document?

No, no, I I get a letter that just takes out um information.

I'm gonna show the witness E21.

Okay.

Yes.

I don't remember seeing every 21.

I'm not I'm not seeing E21.

Last document I have a C17.

I've never seen this in my life.

We gave the we gave the additional e-documents to the previous clerk.

That's that first day.

That's what unfortunately the okay, the fair legal Mike Allen is out ill and has been since last week, and that information was important.

Okay, well, that's what happened.

So uh it sounds like we provided these documents, but they're not here.

I don't know if we have enough copies, but I have the stack here, and the last one was E17.

Okay.

So uh do you have E21 in front of you?

Yes, border one, okay.

I have never seen this document either.

This is another document you've never seen.

No, but they don't have I don't have it either.

I I know that I do know that.

Okay.

Okay.

So the document that you have, what can you describe uh what document that you actually receive?

Neither one of these.

Sure.

Can you describe the document that you receive other than by saying it's not these two documents?

Yes, I usually get an email.

Oh sorry about that.

Um I get an email.

Uh Corvell sends an email and just has a snippet of what um the restrictions are for the member, and that we should be abiding by those, and then I go ahead and notify supervisors and then the member.

Okay.

Did you ever tell Mr.

Benitas that it was unethical for the uh IME to provide him with the diagnosis?

Uh yes, I I remember he started mentioning that he had conversations with this doctor for the IME.

Um, and he said that the doctor was telling him during the IME that he has this and he has that.

And um I said, well, doctors, though those doctors are hired by the city and they have to send a report.

They don't give you diagnosis, they they're not your doctor.

Um, so I that's unethical for a doctor to do that.

So, yes, I do recall that.

Okay, what education do you have in uh medical ethics?

Well, I don't have I don't have any education in medical ethics, but I do know that um independent medical exams, city doctors are hired to perform an independent medical exam of the employee, not to diagnose them and treat them at that appointment.

Oh, okay.

And why uh how do you get come across that knowledge?

That's what I've been told by the people that have trained me in regards to what to um like Neilsa hadn't let me know that that was one of the things that she informed me of is because I when I started, I'm like, okay, tell me about these independent medical exams, and she explained everything and how they work because she deals with them all.

Okay, and she that was one of the things that she explains to me is that these independent medical exams um are not for the employee, they're not doctors' appointments for the employee, they're not there to get a diagnosis, they're there to get examens to see if they're fit for duty to be a police officer.

And that also does um in the letter that's um in the letter that got sent to him about the IME.

Um, actually, disregard that.

No.

So that's I mean, that's how I know is because I was told how the process works.

So for the commission, I'm gonna be looking at Benita's exhibit three, and this is uh one seventy and one seventy-five C as in Charlie.

Three, sorry, Benita's it's it says exhibit three on my notes, but the the baits numbers again are one seventy and one seventy-five.

Thank you.

One seventy to one seventy-five.

Thank you.

Attorney Hacross is that what you're identifying?

Yes.

Okay.

Again, C six, and then base labeled one seventy to one seventy-five.

Do you want the witness to look at that same page?

No, thank you.

Okay.

So um Sergeant Taylor, on December 14th of 2023, uh you wrote to Mr.

Benitas.

I inquired how you were able to make the statement that the independent medical examiner, Dr.

Jarez, diagnosed you with TBI.

You then stated that you received a letter from Dr.

Jaris that stated this diagnosis.

I then asked you if you could supply a copy of the letter.

I then informed you that the city of Milwaukee, D E R slash Corvell hire the IME doctor, and that the doctor we hire does not send out to the member.

I then explain that the doctor we hired to conduct an IME never gives out a diagnosis.

They are prohibited.

It's a conflict of interest.

Is that um why did you send that to Mr.

Benitas at that time I would have to refer to the email and get the whole context of it.

I mean, that's snippets of a conversation that I had with them, so I can't recall that's back in 23.

We're now in 26.

I'm sorry.

Okay, can you show uh it's so it's on its exhibit, I believe.

Uh we said C six, and at the bottom there'll be one seventy Benita's one seventy on there.

It's in the stack of documents in front.

Okay.

Okay, we can take this apart.

Yep.

Okay.

And what number again?

I apologize.

170, 175.

I think it shows up twice.

Okay, I read it.

And what was your question?

Why did you communicate that to him?

Um, okay, so it looks like he was uh wanting to apply for I uh FMLA and for his own serious health condition, and then he stated um in a memo that it was an on duty, or it looks like I don't know the whole conversation, but it just says a second conversation was had um and he was explaining that he had a medical condition.

I'm not certain why I would have added that in there, to be honest with you.

I know um wait one second.

Oh, okay.

I do know why I added that in there.

Um the reason why I added that in there is that it states the last paragraph, it should be noted that you uh that you should have and still should be continue to report to work per the IME Dr.

Jars who stated you can uh work limited duty full time.

The only FMLA that has been approved.

Oh I it happens to us all when we read.

You gotta take a deep breath when you read.

Yes.

Yeah.

The only FMLA that has been approved is for your child from twelve nineteen to twelve twenty-nine because you provided the medical cert that was required.

So I brought up that conversation because I believe he possibly wasn't reporting to work.

Okay.

Yeah.

And did uh you also get the uh the WKC sixteen B's, the workers' comp uh application for the forms, right?

I'm sorry, what was that?

Did you roll as the medical section, you get the workers' compensation forms, right?

Uh you said a certain one.

I don't know what that is.

I'm used to thinking of it as a the form number, but you get the the workers' compensation request, the WKC sixteen Bs.

I can't say yes to something I don't know what what it is either.

As far as I know, it's uh what B twenty two?

B two two is the exhibit number.

Okay.

Okay.

If I got it, it would be stamped medical.

Anytime we receive anything, it has medical on it and the date that we receive this.

So no, this doesn't, I did not receive that.

Okay.

Did you ever learn that Mr.

Benitez uh had a traumatic brain injury or TBI?

Just as um the conversation that he told me he did.

Okay.

And no, you never got any medical documentation stating that he did.

Um, not to my recollection.

Okay.

Is that a communication in which he discusses his TBI with you?

Yeah, that's when, yes.

Okay.

Um, did you ever get any other medical information and like a medical doctor stating a report stating that Mr.

Benitez had a TBI?

Um, to be honest with you, I would have to look through.

I got three years of a lot of medical documentations and deaf different diagnosis.

So is it possible that one of the doctors could have put that down at one time?

Yes.

Um, but at this time I don't uh that's my first recollection of us having a discussion, Benitez and I about that injury.

How did you prepare for your testimony here today?

I reviewed um obviously all the documents, but I can't remember or 10,000.

I mean, thousands of pieces of paper.

I mean, this is it's a lot.

Okay, when did you read these documents?

I mean, I've been I still have a job to do, obviously.

I run the medical section, like I said, for over 2,000 employees.

So um, I try to get it in as much as I can since I knew of the trial since I got subpoenaed.

Okay.

Did you watch any of the testimony?

No.

Okay.

So and just correct me if I misunderstand this, but basically you're telling on December 15th, you're telling Mr.

Benitez that the Dr.

Jara's report supersedes what his medical physician says.

Do I understand that right?

Um he said I said that in an email.

Well, I just asked you, is that did you ever take that position?

Did I ever take the position that an IME supersedes um what his doctor says?

Yeah.

Yes.

So our city doctor, in regards to what if if this is an on-duty injury and he's reporting it, and the city doctor does a thorough investigation, actually, believe he had two city doctors, but um if uh if they do a thorough investigation, whatever their determination is, what Corvell says that responds to us and tells us what they have their restrictions are, and that that's where I get the restrictions that he should be working in a limited duty capacity, um full time.

Okay.

Is it your belief that it no matter what Mr.

Benitez uh medical providers stated that the city would have gone with whatever the IME doctor stated?

Is that fair?

Uh can you repeat that?

I apologize.

Absolutely.

Do is it your position that no matter what Mr.

Benitez physicians uh would have stated that you would have you, the city would have gone with the IME?

So we had accommodated Officer Benitez um in a limited duty capacity with what his doctor's recommendations were up until we did receive the IME results that stated that he could continue as his doctor had recommended working in a limited duty capacity full-time uh full-time.

How does the fact that you uh that the city had accommodated Mr.

Benitez help answer my question?

What was that?

How does the fact that the city accommodated Mr.

Benitez answer my question about whether uh anything that Mr.

Benitez physicians had submitted to the city would change the city's uh prioritizing the IME report?

That's a lot to unfold.

Um, so I believe you're you're asking if how we accommodated him, is that correct?

I'm sorry, it was just what I'm trying to understand.

Look, the we've got uh, as far as I understand, you've privileged the the city privilege the IME report over Mr.

uh Benita's physicians.

Are we clear on that?

Yes, okay.

And then so, but then when I asked you that question, yeah, then you told us about how the city had accommodated him for some time.

Yep.

Okay, how did that help answer my question?

I don't know.

I'm just letting you know that we accommodated him because you've asked several times about ADA accommodations and how we've accommodated them in the past.

So I just wanted to kind of fold that in for you.

Did the fact that the city had it previously accommodated Mr.

Benitez impact your decision to prioritize the uh IME doctor's opinion?

Rather what you believed the IME doctor's opinion was I'm not understanding the question, I'm sorry.

Okay, once again, uh you told us that you had accommodated Mr.

Benitez based on what his previous physician or his personal physicians had said for some time, right?

Yes, okay, and then you said that you got an IME doctor's so then uh you stopped accommodating him.

Did I get that right?

No, we continued.

You continued.

Absolutely.

Yes, we continued accommodating him.

Yeah, he remained limited duty.

Okay.

And then, but what when I asked you what uh why this you privileged the IME over the doc the his personal physicians, you told us that the city had been accommodating him for three years.

Did I understand that right?

Yes.

Okay.

And then so now I'm trying to understand why did that what the fact that the city had accommodated him, how did that uh affect your determination about uh whether to privilege the IME as opposed to his personal physician?

So what I'm understanding is that you want me to answer the fact, how did I come to the conclusion to go with what Corvell said his restrictions are?

That that might be helpful way to put it.

Sure, why don't you tell us about that?

Yeah, so Corvell, obviously, like I said, they work for the Department of Employment Relations, City of Milwaukee, MPD, they are the ones that do the investigation for the claim, and their determination dictates what we do with the officer in regards to that on duty injury that's being claimed, right?

Right.

So then at that point, um, that's when uh I mean, I guess that's when I mean me just letting know officer Benita said, hey, the IME is gonna continue letting you be limited duty, and they'll reevaluate you in you know six months or whatever the case may be.

Got it.

Yeah, but is is it your testimony that you don't even know what Dr.

Jaris' opinion is?

You just know what the Corvell Corporation said as restrictions were.

Is that fair?

It's well, the doctor gave us restrictions, correct?

Yes.

And then he and then obviously Officer Benita's informed me that Dr.

Jarris told me he had a TBI.

So I I have all that information, yes.

What you the information that you have is what an officer Benita told you and what the corporation told you, right?

Yes, correct.

Okay, and then uh on the 15th, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're telling Mr.

Benitez that his personal physicians are wrong because the IME doctor is right.

Do I understand that basically?

No, so I'm saying that the IME doctor says that you can continue being limited duty until further evaluation, and then obviously he still has the responsibility to turn in medical documentation from his doctor to show that he's still getting care for the injury that happened on duty.

Okay, I got it.

So what steps did you take to determine what the IME doctor's diagnosis was?

I'm gonna object to the formula question.

There's no uh date and time she's testified that there's been multiple IMEs.

I don't know.

Can you get a clarifying date in here?

Oh, I didn't realize.

Has there been more than one IME for Mr.

Uh Benitez?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

So let's talk about Mr.

Jar Dr.

Jaris.

Did he do more than one IME report?

Um I am not certain.

I know there was, I don't know who what all doctors, but there were multiple.

I do know that there is multiple IMEs.

And without looking at everything, I wouldn't be able to, I don't know at this point.

I know there was a I believe he had one IME that he refused to go to because he said he had console or um he had a lawyer and they told him not to go.

Um that I want to say, I don't remember who that was with.

I'd have to look at all the documentation.

Um I know for sure he he reported for two.

Um, there may be more than that though.

Okay, but so when you say that the IME found Mr.

Benita's capable of working full-time light duty, yes, you didn't you don't actually know that, you just heard that from the corporation, true.

Yeah, I have it in writing, yeah.

Sure from the corporation.

Well, it's from yeah, it's from Corvell, it goes to the Department of Employee Relations who and then talks with us, you know, City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee Police Department.

So, yes.

So Corvell is hired by Department of Employee Relations, City of Milwaukee.

Obviously, Milwaukee Police Department is outfitted by the city of Milwaukee.

That's who are you know so someone called you and told you that calls emailed.

We get an email from any time we get IMEs, um IME information on restrictions, we do get an email.

Got it, yeah.

So, but the ultimately the Mr.

Benitez is claiming that the Dr.

Jar says that he has a traumatic brain injury.

Yes, yes, and uh that um you're telling him you're telling Mr.

Benitez that that's not possible because Dr.

Jaris couldn't give out a diagnosis, right?

I did not say that was not possible.

I just said the fact that you're telling me that a doctor is giving you out diagnosis as if he's caring for you as your doctor, that they shouldn't be doing that.

That's what I was that's what I said.

Okay.

I inquired how you were able to make the statement that the independent medical examiner, Dr.

Jaris diagnosed you with TBI.

You stated that you received a letter from Dr.

Jaris that stated this diagnosis.

I then asked you if you could supply the copy of the letter.

I then informed you that the city of Milwaukee DER slash Corvell hire the IME doctor, and the doctor we hire does not send out letters to the members.

I then explained.

You sure are.

I am.

I am skipping sentences.

What page are you?

I'm on 175 again.

Or 170.

Oh, thank you.

So the I I mean it's whether I'm skipping around or not.

The ultimate question is how if you hadn't actually seen the doctor, uh the IME report, how were you able to tell Mr.

Benitas uh what was it did or did not say?

Object and asked and answered.

If you remember so officer Benitez was not coming to work at that time.

That's why this conversation was had um that we received an IME that stated that he could work limited duty full time.

Um and your question, I'm I apologize.

What was your question again?

How were you able to tell Mr.

Benitez what uh Dr.

Jar uh Dr.

Jaris had or had not diagnosed him with if you hadn't actually read the uh independent medical report?

Because he told me he told me that he has this traumatic brain injury.

And I inquired when he I'm like I inquired, like, oh the IME doctor told you this.

He said, Yeah.

Okay.

And what is the basis of your belief that the IME doctor is prohibited from communicating his uh diagnosis?

Well, this is the thing.

So IMEs independent medical exams are to be given, you know, they don't give out diagnosis to the patient.

That's not their patient.

It's the IME is for um is hired by the city of Milwaukee um to conduct an evaluation to see if the officer is fit for duty.

Um it does not an IME is not for the members' personal, hey, this is what's going on, we're gonna help you, what what hurts, stuff like that?

Is that's not what's going on.

So a doctor isn't conversing with the patient that I know.

I mean, that's I mean is are they fit for duty, and that's that.

They're not giving out as they're not doctoring them, like as their their doctor.

And what what documents or documents uh supply you with that belief?

Um, I don't have documents that supply me with that, but I mean, Corvell, if you had any questions for them on how they operate, you could ask them how everything goes, but I know that I've asked a couple of times on how the IME work work, how IMEs worked, and um and Rosato Jerkowitz um back in the day is the one that told me how everything works, and that's what I'm going with because she's the expert and she dealt with all of this stuff.

Did you ever deny Mr.

Benita's request for accommodations based on uh your understanding of the IME report?

No.

Okay.

Uh did the IME report calculate into your uh denials of Mr.

Uh Benita's in any way?

No.

Okay.

So I don't think we've quite got through there yet, but uh, I think this the first time that Mr.

Benita's request for FMLA, he does uh he requests at least two things, one for his child, and then others as well.

Yeah, he requested just uh the refreshing my memory on this that you just pulled up when it says he wanted two blocks of time for two different um time frames, and I told him exactly I spelled it all out.

This is what you need, this is what we discussed.

Um, so yes, he did request uh he did let me know that he does need FMLA for his own serious uh condition for two different blocks of time, and then one for his child, correct?

Now I've seen several emails uh between you and different uh members of the police department stating that you had denied the FMLA for those requests.

Did you recall those emails?

Um, I don't recall.

If I see them, I can read and you know well, do you I mean do you dispute that you communicated with others about this on this subject?

Um yeah, I believe it was IED, yes.

They had asked.

And you also emailed Mr.

Benita saying that he uh ordering him to report to work, right?

Yes, correct.

And what if are you Mr.

Benito's supervisor?

No, okay.

What authority do you have to uh author to order Mr.

Benitas to work?

Well, I'm the chief's dozen e so basically I mean I'm running the medical section, so I minister the FMLA.

I um I do all kinds of things, all you know on duty injuries, old duty injuries, all the sick forms.

I mean, there's multiple aspects that I uh handle in the medical section.

So um, but yes, I I'm the chief designee for the department in regards to the medical section.

So fair enough.

There's no uh I am assuming based on that response that then you there's no SOP that says that you can direct a uh an employee to work, right?

Oh, yeah, I can I can.

I'm a I'm a supervisor, I'm a sergeant, so yes, I can do I do have that authority.

Yes, okay.

So that's the basis of your authorities that you're a supervisor.

Is that fair?

Correct.

Okay, I'm just not as direct supervisor, but I can direct anybody um in the department.

Um because you're the designee, correct, and also because I'm a sergeant for the walkie police department and he's a police officer, or he was a police officer.

Okay.

Now, um why did you believe that you had the lawful authority to direct Mr.

Benitas to uh come to work at that time?

Well, um I believe I'm gonna object again.

There's no clarification at that time.

I would prefer to have some clarification as to what date you are discussing.

There are several instances here.

Fair enough.

I'll be happy to clear that up.

You never actually sent for these these.

We're talking about the two FMLA requests in addition to the one that you granted uh for the two blocks of time.

You never actually sent a disposition form, did you?

So gonna object.

There was no date provided.

What time period are we talking about?

Well, I'll ask a different way.

Ma'am, the two blocks of time that you denied, you know what time period we're talking about, right?

Um, I couldn't tell you what dates, but I'm I'm assuming I mean there's a couple of different dates in here.

Um, I can't, I I guess I can't assume what dates are talking about.

But but do you know what time we're talking about?

No, I'm just because we do have a couple um of FMLA denials.

Okay.

So once again, uh just to back up, as far as I understand it, you granted Mr.

Uh Benita's FMLA leave for uh his child's birth.

Did I understand that right?

Yes, okay.

And then after that, you denied him two requests for FMLA for two blocks of time as you just put it.

Do you recall that?

In that exact email, yeah, I'd have to look at that real quick.

And it has a dates on it.

Do you recall that is the question?

I do, yes.

Okay.

So that now with that in mind.

Yes.

Okay.

Did you send him a disposition notice for those two denials?

Um, I believe I would have, yes.

Okay.

Were you ever asked to produce any documents in respect with respect to this case?

Was I asked to produce documents to who?

Anyone?

Um, no, so I know that we have a medical file for Officer Benitez.

And then um, we have in human resources members that make copies of requests.

I don't handle those requests.

Did anybody ask you for any like for example?

My colleague here.

Were you asked by the city attorney's office for any documents?

Objection attorney client privilege.

No.

Well, if it's a document for this for this hearing, it was supposed to be provided.

Understood in any conversation that I have with Misty Taylor.

But did you did you ask for a particular document that he's asking for?

He's asking for a document, right?

Right.

That's what we're asking for.

Not advice, documents.

I understand that counsel.

Then I'll rephrase my objection to attorney work product.

Overrule.

Okay.

Can you did you produce documents to my colleague here?

I did not.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

I'm guessing we're gonna come to a pretty good stopping point soonish, and then might have a longer one to go through 12.

It doesn't, and I'm just saying I don't if we don't want to go into 12, we might stop before that.

But that's the information I have right now.

No, I have I'm gonna have more questions, but I'm saying we're probably get to a good stopping point sooner rather than later.

We get at least another 25 about 20 25 minutes to a half hour before lunch comes.

Perfect.

Okay.

Now at some point, Miss Taylor, did you ever communicate with Mr.

Benitez's attorneys?

I did, no.

Okay.

So the only person that you uh communicated with regard to uh was Mr.

Taylor uh Benitez for Mr.

Benita's cases, right?

Yeah, I talked to Mr.

Benitez numerous times, yes.

But no, no, you didn't talk to any other agents for him, nobody on else on his behalf.

No, not that I can recall.

Got it.

Okay.

So and part of my question, because I I think I asked it of Ms.

Roberts was do you have access to the independent medical report if you wanted to get it?

Unfortunately, I do not.

I wish we did, but we do not.

Okay.

Got it.

And why do you think you don't have access to this document?

Um I was told by Neil Say via email.

I just don't recall why, but she was kind of like I said, in charge of all the workman's comp stuff, so she kind of educated me on everything.

But that was a request that I really wanted with her.

I said, hey, I'd really like to get these IMEs so I know what they're you know, to look at the whole picture of our you know employees, and she's like, no, it's not we don't send them to you.

Did she say why?

Um she might have just mentioned it's not it's not uh we just don't send them to you.

I I don't really recall the reason, no.

Okay.

Where did you form this belief that the IME doesn't send his reports uh to the patient?

The doctor doesn't directly send it to the patient because it's not a doctor, it's not his doctor.

Um the IME does get sent to Corvell, and if Corvell sends it out, that's that's on Corbell.

But I know the doctor is not, I was told that the doctor does not send any paperwork directly to the patient or member.

Um it's fair to say that for Mr.

Benita's FMLA request, you were consulting with the Department of Employee Relations.

Fair.

I'm sorry.

I just again just object.

We're dealing now with multiple FMLA requests.

If counsel could clarify the question as to what particular FMLA request he is designating or referring to, that would make sense.

Okay, that's fair.

So I believe that we've talked about that.

You uh have responded to multiple uh FMLA requests.

Yes, okay, and so far we've talked about three of them.

Is that your recollection?

Um, yes, the one for his child.

Right, and we've talked about one for his child and two that you denied, correct?

So let's just focus on those.

Okay.

Did you consult with the DER for those uh FMLA responses?

No.

Okay.

Did you consult with Pamela Roberts for those FMLA responses?

Um, no.

Okay.

Did you consult with Corvell on those responses?

No, I don't know.

Got it.

Okay.

Now let's talk about this.

There's at least one other set that I believe that starts happening in the spring of 2025 that he's asking for uh FMLA accommodations.

Is that your understanding?

Um, I would have to look.

I don't know the exact dates of all the FMLAs he's applied for.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

So so far it's FMLA, but thank you for that.

Same question for spring of 2025.

Did he request any accommodations?

Uh no, he did not.

Okay.

I recall an email uh that you sent uh to other members of uh your section and others uh about Mr.

Benitez request for FMLA stating that it would be denied before it was actually denied.

Do you recall that?

No.

What medical restrictions did Mr.

Benitez have uh with work restrictions that he have?

Objection is to form a question, no time provided.

I'll clean that up in uh September of 2025.

I'd have to look at the document that you're speaking of, um, just for the fact that his limitations in the past three years have changed, so I can't narrow it down to one time.

Okay, what is restrictions?

And that's why I uh am asking it the questions this way.

Yes.

So what let's just uh generally speaking, what accommodations do you recall Mr.

Benita's asking for?

At what point in time?

I'm asking a clarifying question.

I understand that you are, and I'm ignoring it, and I'm asking the witness to please.

Then I will object and indicate that I'm objecting to the form of the question.

I should stay in there.

Okay, she's indicated that it it would change during time.

So right, so that's why and she's recalled.

She said that she didn't remember each specific time.

And so I now I'm asking her generally speaking, which one she does recall because she couldn't recall the specific times, but uh due to my colleagues' suggestion.

So now we we did that that we hit a uh a brick wall there, and we're asking just generally what does she recall?

That's all we're trying to ask, if you recall.

Um, I just recall the request of being limited duty desk duty.

I remember, but I can't give you a time.

That's just I know he was limited duty for a good three years.

Okay, limited duty, and but as far as I understand limited duty, uh it means more well, uh put it to you this way.

What does limited duty mean to you there for Mr.

Benita's work?

And again, it does depend on all the doctors what they provide for the restrictions, but a limited duty capacity is when a member isn't in a full duty uh not working in a full duty police officer capacity on the street.

So it's usually an inside uh job of some sort or whatever, whatever the doc his doctor recommends.

Well, how do you as the medical section make sure that the limited duty work is tailored to the restrictions?

So I confer with the supervisors, and I've been on the job for almost 22 years.

I've been a lot, you know, I've been in a lot of different positions.

I've been a supervisor, so I know basically in regards to limited duty, what we can and cannot accommodate.

So if a doctor is saying this person needs to be on uh working desk duty, we can accommodate them.

I know that.

And I just verify with you know the district if it's something that's different than what the normal doctor puts down in regards to limited duty and desk duty.

Okay.

So the repository of what whether the department can or cannot accommodate a request, that's entirely within your within you, right?

No, it's the doctor that gives the restrictions.

I don't.

So I we just accommodate them.

Right.

So but we're clear that the doctor says what the restrictions are that the that it's the employee that asked to have an accommodation, right?

Yes, correct.

And then are you aware of the interactive process?

Of accommodations?

Interactive process of what?

For under the ADA, are you aware of the interactive process?

Yeah, I understand that.

What is your understanding?

My understanding is if a member asks for an accommodation that we try to accommodate the best we can within the realms of obviously the department, which we have done for officer Benitez.

What does that mean?

Accommodate him as best we can.

Well, in regards to what his doctor says that he can do and cannot do, do we have a job for him?

Yes, we let him work and contribute to the department's mission in a different um aspect than going out and being a police officer and doing general patrol, which is his normal position.

Okay.

So is there other than your subjective belief?

Is there any document that you can consult or that anybody can consult to let us know uh what accommodations the department will and will not accommodate?

No, so it's we uh go by it's a case-by-case basis.

So if Officer Benitez supplies medical documentation and requests that he be accommodated, these are his restrictions.

Can you do it the majority of the times we can as a department?

We have many, yeah.

I understand that it may be the majority, it may be, but what I'm trying to understand is how do you make that determination of whether the department can do it by reviewing what the doctor provides for us as in the individual case for each member and what the restrictions are, whether it be desk duty, whether it be no bending, no sitting, break time, whatever the case may be.

Okay.

So we get again that that's how we identify what the request is from the employee, right?

Okay, got that.

Then the next what is the next stage in the interactive process as you understand it?

So this is the thing.

An ADA accommodation is what I understand is.

I mean, we're accommodating him.

So I don't, I guess, what do you want me to give you in regards to like what's the process?

I what the process is we got a doctor's note.

They ask, can he be limited duty?

He's limited duty.

I don't know what more you would like from me.

What is the next step in the interactive process after as you understand it that the employee after the employee requests an accommodation?

Monitor his status if that's what you're looking for, monitor the status, make sure he's providing updated medical documentation to what his restrictions are.

Hopefully getting him back to full duty and doing his job again.

Is there any uh attempt by anyone in the department that you're aware of to find out if the department can accommodate the request?

Can you repeat that?

I'm sorry.

Sure.

Is there any attempt by the department that you're aware of to determine whether or not the department can accommodate the employee's request?

Yeah, the attempt to review his medical documentation that he provides from his doctor and to make sure that we can accommodate them, which we did for three years.

Okay.

So what does the department do to determine if it can accommodate an employee's request?

Objection asked and answered.

Okay.

How does the department communicate that determination to the employee?

Well, they're on limited duty.

They request it, and as long as the doctor provides the restrictions and we can accommodate it, then they're accommodated.

Okay.

What again?

What if you can't accommodate it?

How does the department communicate that to the employee?

Well, it's basically a process.

So if you become limited duty, there's a process outline.

If you're become limited duty, you have to complete a memorandum if you're a member who requests a limited duty status, or even if it's an ADA accommodation of anything else, um, we're talking about Benita's obviously, his is a limited duty thing, his is a um on duty injury that he's um that we're talking about.

But like any ADA accommodation, they have to file a memorandum, notify us, and we're in communication with them.

The medical sections in communication with the member, just letting them know what the next steps are.

So, like for instance, uh Benita's, hey, I see your PP18.

Thank you for providing that that you have to be desk duty.

I see your next date on the sheet for appointments is going to be on 412 of 23.

I need you to make sure you update me with a new PP18.

So there's communication, whether it be email, whether it be phone calls, but the expectation is always there.

And the communication with the medical section with myself, Nancy or Danelle is always there on what is needed when someone's limited duty.

So email, phone, I mean, that's the type of communication we okay.

So and I get that the employee has to communicate to you, but then uh did I understand that at some point in that process that you communicate back to the employee that you can or cannot uh accommodate the request?

Yeah, I mean, they're if as long as they're notifying us of the request and they're providing medical documentation, that's sufficient.

They are limited duty, or we abide by those.

If there's anything that we do need more of, that's definitely something that we communicate.

So either way, we're communicating with them via phone or via email.

Okay.

And what do you can what do you communicate to them at that point?

If there's a need for additional information, um, or if there's any, I mean, or if there's anything else that's needed, but I mean, they'll know, we'll communicate it.

Usually I do it via email.

Um, once in a while, a member will call me.

I'm not gonna say, I'm not gonna talk to you.

Let me hang up and email you.

Sometimes I will refer, I do a lot of times just so I can make sure I keep track of myself.

I um after phone call conversations, I do type an email saying for our conversation, this is what was said, this is what is expected.

Please provide this.

Okay.

If there's something needed for the request for a hybrid schedule, how did you communicate to Mr.

Benitez that the county could not accommodate his request?

Well, it's not that we couldn't accommodate it at the time.

We were saying you can be limited duty, and you we just need to figure out, and I needed him.

I communicated with him that he needs to provide an updated medical documentation that gives me an explanation what his restrictions are.

Um, and what I mean, like I said, we we kind of hit this over the head multiple times about the two days full duty, the three times um limited duty.

It it's contradicting itself.

You're either full duty or partial duty, and if there's a reason why you believe that this person should just I need to know what the restrictions are.

Um he never provided that.

Got it.

I'm gonna direct your attention to B as an uh Bravo Zero Six.

Okay, uh the Benitas Bates number at the bottom is triple quadruple zero twenty-seven, and I believe for the record that the communication starts on page 28 and the Bates number there B06 B as in Bravo 06 and what date number, please.

We're gonna start with 28.

Are you at that document?

I am okay.

So then I'll ask you this question.

I see at the bottom there it says November 11th, 2023 from Misty Taylor to officer Benita's.

Do you see that there?

On 28 from 27.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, got it.

So from Benitez to Taylor.

Yes, I see that.

Well, no, this is from you to Benita's.

Oh, okay.

Um, then it's going back to 26, right?

Sure.

And it says on November 11th, 2023 at 1255 p.m., Taylor, comma misty, and then it has your email address, and then it says wrote.

Do you see that there?

Oh, yes.

And you don't disagree that that's your email, right?

Correct.

Okay.

And it says, Officer Benitez, I want to inform you that this updated PP 18 that you submitted is not valid regarding your doctor's recommendation to work three full days in a work period.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Okay.

And it says, I received your results from the City of Milwaukee, Department of Employee Relations regarding your independent medical evaluation, IME you had on 9-9, 2023, which has deemed you capable of full-time light duty.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Okay.

And is is that fair to say that that's uh the basis for your denial of the hybrid uh uh work schedule was in fact because you privileged the IME report without having read read it over uh Mr.

Benita's uh medical physician.

So yeah, the the IME had came out already informing him that he could work.

Yes, he he knew that already.

Yes, and I'm just yep, that would that is correct.

Right, and you'll agree with me that you testified earlier that your uh the reason that you denied it was because uh liability.

Did I understand that right?

Denied what his request for a hybrid schedule, as we're just going through in this document here, excuse me, ma'am.

We're going through in this document here, right?

Okay, and that you told us before that it was because of liability.

Did I misunderstand that right?

That was one of the reasons.

Oh, okay.

And but you didn't tell that to Mr.

Benit, you didn't tell that to Mr.

Benitez uh on November 11, 2023.

Did I miss that?

So you're you're comparing apples and oranges.

So this is from November 11, 2023.

I got that one brand new in this position, right?

Yes, and you testified earlier that Mr.

Benitez came to your attention because he was uh according to you signing up for full-time work to get over time, trying to get one over on the city, right?

I didn't say that.

Oh, okay.

Those are your words.

Okay.

You just implied that, right?

No, wrong.

Oh, okay.

So, but we're on the same page that you testified on this exact that the reason that you denied his request for accommodation was because of liability to the city, right?

So no, I mean, that's no, I understand no.

And then you also testified earlier as I understood it, that it was a coincidence that he got this medical uh that he provided you with a medical uh documentation after you had asked him for it.

Didn't I understand that right?

When you testified under oath about that earlier today.

So you're putting things out of context for me.

Um, if I can articulate myself that would be a good idea.

Can you answer my question first?

And then I can give you a six.

No, okay.

Why didn't I understand that correctly?

Because you're not putting everything into context.

So well, then let me ask you this question.

When uh you testified uh to the department or testified under oath earlier, you didn't tell any of us of us under oath about the IME being the reason that you weren't gonna let him work the full three days in a uh in a work period, right?

Wrong.

So that was a different time that you're comparing two different things, and we didn't have an IME at that time, so I couldn't.

You're you're trying to intermingle two things that happen at a completely different time.

It's not making sense.

Okay.

Well, is there a reason that you would have indicated the fact that he was sent for an IM that you would have sent Mr.

Benitas an email identifying an IME in November of 2023 or something else?

So this email was sent due to the fact that um, can you answer my question first?

Yeah, ask your question again, please.

Well, why did you on if as you just said was true that there was no independent medical evaluation at this time, meaning your first month as the um designee of the chief?

Why are you referring to did you put in your email of November 11th, 2023?

Uh, I received your results from the City of Milwaukee Department of Employee Relations regarding your independent medical evaluation you had on 9-9 2023.

Can you answer that question, please?

Yes, again, you're putting you're connecting two different incidents, and it uh it's not doesn't make sense.

So this incident is by itself.

This one had an IME, and I was articulating why at that point in time we are not gonna accommodate these restrictions that he supplied to us after the fact that he was already informed of the IME results.

Okay.

The other incident was a totally separate incident.

We didn't even have an IME at that point in time.

That I wanted clarification, and you asked why I wanted clarification at that point in time, and I said it was because it was a liability thing.

How many hybrid requests did he make during your first month of uh employment at in the position of um medical section?

I I'm unaware right now.

I I would have to look at the paperwork.

I don't know.

Well, why do you think it's more than one then?

Because I've had a lot of encounters with Officer Benitez.

Um, and he's had a lot of things that um, yeah, so I don't know.

I would have to look at the documentation, but I do know for a fact that this is a separate incident, and this is an incident where he was advised that he was aware that per the IME he has to work full time, that other incident was not the same thing.

That these are two different incidents.

Okay, but you know for a fact that they're not the same incident, but it in here you do you don't dispute that he's asking to work three days.

I wanted to bring you I'll read it.

Officer Benitez, I informed you the PP18 medical resection received from you on Monday, November 6, 2023, is not valid regarding your doctor's recommendation to work three full days in a work period because of the fact that you were sent for an IME by the city of Milwaukee.

That is on page 27 and B06 on the second email.

Officer Benita's signed by Sergeant Misty Taylor.

What was the question?

Do you deny that you said that?

On okay.

No, I don't deny that.

I'm just saying this is different from the other incident that you're trying to um you're trying to commingle the two, and that it's not they're not the same thing.

Okay, but and and I just want to clarify you told us that you know for a fact that these are two separate incidents, but uh you're not able to point to anything that uh would show us another request to work for three days, right?

Well, what we talked about earlier was full time two days full duty officer and three days limited duty.

This is a different incident.

This is this is a doctor request just saying he just wants to work three full days.

That's it.

Three full days in what a work week, a month, there was no specifications, but regardless of that, we went with the independent medical examination.

Um that stated he can work in a limited duty capacity, which we'd honor, and but it'd be you know five days a week.

Okay.

Is it your do you routinely return um medical I uh FMLA requests when people ask to work three full days in a work period because you don't understand what three full days in a work period mean?

Oh, I understand what three days mean, but it doesn't say in a work period, it's three full days.

Oh, I'm sorry, it does say it.

I apologize it's three full days in a work period.

Um do I what send FMLA paperwork?

Do you routinely reject FMLA paperwork because doctors recommend uh for the employee to work three full days in a work period because you don't know what three full days in a work period means?

No, okay, just for Mr.

Benitas.

No.

Well, you're denying you did that here.

You're you're talking about me denying FMLA.

This is a limited duty position, and you're not talking about the same thing once again.

Okay.

Well, same question then for Americans with with for accommodation.

Okay.

Well, so do you routinely deny requests for accommodations because you don't understand what a doctor's recommendation to work three full days in a work period is?

No.

Okay, just for Mr.

Benitas.

No, that's not true.

Okay.

Well, why did you tell us the commission just moments ago that you're unable to determine what work three full days in a work period means?

But that's irrelevant to what he was.

We have an IME that says he can work five days.

So we have a doctor that says he can work five days.

This is for his on duty injury.

We're we're talking you're all over the place.

FMLA, um, ADAA accommodation.

It's it's just a lot you're throwing into something that's not making a lot of sense.

Like everything is separate, FMLA is separate, on duty injury is separate, ADA accommodation is separate.

There is no such thing as they all go in one pot and just tell me why you're denying him.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

So I'm trying to understand your questioning here because it's not it's all over the place.

Okay.

So I appreciate that um critique, but uh to be clear, we're all on this page 0027.

Yes, correct.

And we we're all clear that these are emails from you to Mr.

Benitas, right?

Yes.

Okay, and for example, he's asking you what makes my PP18 invalid.

Yes, right, and you're saying it's not valid regarding your doctor's recommendation to work three full days in a work period.

Do I am I missing something there?

You are not.

Okay.

And again, the date here is November 11, 2023.

Can we agree to that?

Yes.

Okay, so that's we're not really all over the place with that, right?

Uh, with that date, no.

Oh no.

And and well, and in fact, we're not all over the place with your words that you wrote on that date, are we?

Uh I don't know.

What's your question?

Okay.

So uh, what is the purpose of a PP18 form?

PP18 is to be utilized each time a member sees a physician for an on-duty injury.

Okay.

Got it.

And then what do they do?

Uh, what is your responsibility once you get a PP18 form?

My responsibility is to review it, make sure that there is a follow-up appointment date.

Um, make sure it's completed in its entirety.

And if it's missing anything, request uh for them to have their doctor update the form.

Okay.

Got it.

And so you determine this PP 18 on November 11, 2023 was invalid because Mr.

Because the doctor's recommendation to work three full days in a work period was overruled by an IME, which you don't know which one that IME that is.

Is do I misunderstand that?

So there is an IME that was done, and he had been told that he can work five days a week, limited duty.

So he's being accommodated.

We're not asking him to go out and be a police officer on the street.

Um, and that's per the IME.

And if you want me to look through all the documents and find out what doctor did that IME, I'm more than happy to do that.

It's just gonna take some time.

Okay, but based on this document, we can be clear that you had you were aware of on November 11, 2023, that Mr.

Benitas had doctors' recommendations to work three full days in a work period, right?

Yeah, and we established that the IME was done prior to this, and that he was advised that he can work five days and he still supplied documentation with no date on it.

Okay, the doctor didn't even put the appointment date.

Um, so there's no date on that.

So I have no idea where what date that's coming from.

And the IME done.

And we would reevaluate them in six months.

He has the right to appeal any of these decisions, and it's all over his paperwork that he gets from Corval.

If he doesn't like the decisions they make, he can appeal it.

But at this point, this is and it's even on, you know.

Um, he has the right to appeal anything.

So you're communicating Corbel's decisions.

That's fair.

Yes, that is fair.

I understand.

I think it's a good time for a break now.

Take a break to one o'clock.

Oh, yeah, for sure.

Even early.

Continue, and uh we shall proceed accordingly.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

So when we last talked, I understood that the decisions that were coming from your office were ultimately being made by Corvell, right?

Regarding the uh for Officer Benitez, right?

Yes, for his unduty injury.

Okay, well, was there were there other decisions?

Where's is the workers' compensation?

Well, let's take a step back.

What is Corvell as you understand it?

Well, I believe it's an agency that is um hired by the Department of Employer Relations City of Milwaukee.

Um, it's a company that helps facilitate claims and insurance claims and does all the research and does everything in regards to the claims and the injuries and stuff like that.

Insurance, okay.

And I believe you told me that you worked with the Mr.

Mall.

Did I understand that?

I did work with him at one point, yeah.

Okay, do you know his title?

He was a claims representative.

Got it.

Okay.

Michael Mole, I believe it's M-O-L-L.

Okay.

And uh the insurance that they're providing is the workers' compensation insurance for the city, right?

Yes.

Okay.

And it's in the benefit of that corporation to have less uh to pay out less for workers' compensation, isn't that accurate?

I don't work for Corval, so those questions I cannot answer.

Oh, okay.

You so you don't have any opinion on whether or not an insurance company, a workers' compensation insurance company prefers to have uh fewer larger or lesser claims.

Is that true?

Correct, I have no opinion on that.

Oh, okay.

Why then do you have you um and are is there any documents that say that Corvell is the designated FMLA representative for the city of Milwaukee?

Objection mistakes care uh misstates the testimony of Sergeant Taylor and is irrelevant to the claims that we are here for today.

Yeah, I don't think that uh Corvell has any basis for that.

Uh WC.

That's what they're talking about WC claims.

They don't handle FMLA for you.

They do not, they're two totally separate things.

Oh, okay.

So when you're saying that the decisions from your office were coming from Corvell, you're just talking about old duty injury.

I'm talking about the injury in general.

So Corvell handles all the injuries, his claim, Officer Benita's claim, which I explained earlier that FMLA is separate, ADA accommodations is separate, and then you have all different umbrellas, and then obviously Corvell handles all the workman compliance.

Yes.

But it's Corvell who ultimately made the decision about accommodation to the the work schedule, isn't that true?

Again, objection, miss state's testimony and is asked and answered.

Sustained.

On what grounds?

Her testimony is already that uh that's not necessarily the case.

They review that internally here, uh at least for a portion of them, and it only goes to the um Corvell if they if they have to get an MY IME and that type of thing.

Oh, okay.

So it let me then be clear.

It's your testimony that you didn't consult Corvell with respect to Mr.

Um Benita's request for accommodations, true.

Objection asked and answered just stain.

Oh, okay.

And you didn't consult with Corvell with regard to the FMLA request.

Is that also my understanding?

Objection, asked and answered.

Okay.

So what was your answer to those previous questions?

Objection.

Asked and answered.

Well, let's have it read out then, because I I don't know that I know what the answer to that question is.

This if I may just lodge a long-standing objection to the testimony and the arguments and the questions that have come from counsel.

I understand that counsel has a wide way, a wide birth to go ahead and get in the information that he feels is necessary for his defense.

I I've granted him that we are on now our four of this testimony, which feels like a grand large-scale fishing expedition for claims that have not been filed as of now.

And I believe for the point that we are here for, pursuant to 6250 is again at phase one, whether or not a rule was violated.

We are so far a kinder, so far afield from why we're here.

I'm going to request that we rein in the questions to why we are here at this point in time, because this is like I said, hour four of this, what feels to me to be a deposition and is unreal is irrelevant to why we're here.

So to that point, we don't need to have our hearing or court reporter pour through the last four hours of testimony to get the exact answer that Sergeant Taylor has already given on multiple counts multiple times and multiple questions.

I'll ask a different series of questions.

All right.

All right.

So if you could go to, and I assume it's in the same uh B exhibit that we were looking for.

This is Benita's 00022.

Can you go to that one, please?

We're in uh exhibit B06.

Thank you.

EO5.06 B22.

So if he is indicating that he's searching for Benita C O M base label 22, that is exhibit B6, B06, the first page thereof.

Okay.

And this is a communication from you on May 3rd of 2024.

Do you see that?

No, not yet.

Not yet.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Exhibit B06.

I'm there.

Okay.

April.

Did you have a doc number?

Uh I believe it's triple zero twenty-two.

She's there, counsel.

Oh, fantastic.

So I just uh I'll read this email.

And you don't dispute this an email from you uh to uh at least Mr.

uh Captain Teal and uh others at the Milwaukee Police Department, right?

Correct, it was addressed to uh his sergeant uh lieutenants and the captain, yes.

Okay, great.

And it says I have attached an email chain with instructions that I gave Officer Benitez was while he was on uh early shift.

I understand that he has been transferred to day shift, and you are one of his supervisors.

He does not have authorization from Corvell to call in IO uh IOD or ODI for his alleged injury from 514 2022.

Did I read that right?

Yes.

Okay, and it says he must continue to report to work full time, limited duty, which the uh department can and has been accommodating.

Nothing has changed.

Do you see that there?

Yes, okay.

Why had nothing changed at that point?

Nothing has changed with the accommodations because the medical documentation that he has provided.

Um, and then in regards to um, let's see.

Oh, in regards to Corbell, um, that's provided that he doesn't that yeah, he didn't have the authorization.

It's kind of right there in the story.

So um he does not have authorization for Corvell to call an IOD, you have to have authorization from them for his injury from the 514 of 2022.

So from his alleged injury, right?

Correct.

Yeah, correct.

Yep.

And then uh he must continue to report to work full-time per the IME that we've discussed in uh several times, limited duty, uh, which the department can and has been accommodating, and nothing has changed, therefore.

Okay, yeah.

So when we and we went back and forth before about different uh different kinds of restrictions that he may have.

Yes, okay.