If a DC police officer or firefighter is hurt in a crash while driving a District vehicle on duty, can they collect no-fault PIP benefits from DC on top of their regular disability and salary benefits?
Plain-English summary
DC police officers and firefighters are covered by a long-standing system of disability benefits and salary continuation when they are hurt on duty. The Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act of 1935 covered them for decades, and in 1979 the DC Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act (CMPA) added a parallel disability compensation system for newer hires. Both systems are exclusive remedies. They are the only thing DC owes an injured officer or firefighter for an on-duty injury.
In 1982, DC enacted the Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. After it took effect, lawyers representing DC police officers and firefighters injured in on-duty crashes started writing letters demanding no-fault PIP benefits from DC, on top of the disability and salary benefits already paid. Fire Chief Theodore Coleman asked Corporation Counsel Inez Reid whether the No-Fault Law gave officers and firefighters a new claim against the District. Reid said no.
The reason is the exclusivity rule of workers' compensation, which applies to the CMPA in DC. CMPA Section 1-624.16(c) is virtually identical to the federal FECA exclusivity clause. It says the District's liability under the CMPA scheme is "exclusive and instead of all other liability" of the District government to the employee for the same injury. Federal courts and DC courts have repeatedly enforced exclusivity clauses, including for police and firefighter injuries (Brown v. Jefferson; Tredway v. District of Columbia; Anthony v. Norfleet).
The No-Fault Law itself does not change that. Sections 8(a)(1), 11(b)(2), and 11(b)(4) of the Act all preserve existing employer compensation duties; nothing in the legislative history shows the Council intended to repeal CMPA exclusivity. Implied repeals are disfavored (Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.; Morton v. Mancari).
So the rule is: an on-duty DC officer or firefighter injured in a DC vehicle gets CMPA disability and salary continuation, but cannot stack DC no-fault PIP on top. They can still claim no-fault benefits from any private no-fault insurer involved (for example, a third-party motorist's insurer), just not from DC.
What this means for you
If you are a DC police officer or firefighter injured on duty in a District vehicle
Your benefits come from the DC disability system, not from DC's no-fault auto insurance. Specifically:
- Hires before January 1, 1980: Your disability and salary continuation come under the Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act (D.C. Code §§ 4-601 et seq.).
- Hires on or after January 1, 1980: Your disability and salary continuation come under CMPA Title XXIII (D.C. Code § 1-624.1 et seq.).
Both systems pay for medical and surgical services, hospital treatment, and continued salary. They are exclusive against DC as employer; you cannot also collect no-fault PIP from DC on top.
But you may still have rights against third parties. If your crash involved a private motorist (a civilian driver), that motorist's insurance may owe you benefits, and you may have a private tort claim against them. CMPA exclusivity protects DC, not the third party.
If you are a union representative for DC police or firefighters
Two practical takeaways. First, the bargaining unit cannot recover no-fault PIP benefits from DC for on-duty crashes. Push the disability-benefits angle, not no-fault stacking. Second, Brown v. Jefferson and the 1957 amendment to the Police/Fire Disability Act prevent double recovery between FECA-style benefits and disability benefits, but the Maryland decision in City of Baltimore v. Rose shows some jurisdictions have allowed firefighters to collect uninsured-motorist coverage even where employer disability benefits are paid. DC follows the exclusivity-strict approach.
If you are a personal-injury attorney representing a DC officer or firefighter
The District is generally off-limits as a defendant for on-duty injuries. Direct your case toward third-party tortfeasors and their insurers. Calculate damages with the disability and salary continuation as the floor; the goal of a third-party suit is to recover what those benefits do not cover (usually pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and amounts above the scheduled salary continuation).
If your client was hurt in a District vehicle but you can identify a vehicle defect, there may be a product-liability claim against the manufacturer that is not barred by CMPA exclusivity.
If you handle DC risk management or workers compensation
The exclusivity defense is robust for on-duty motor vehicle crashes. Mason v. District of Columbia, 395 A.2d 399, Tredway, 403 A.2d 732, and Anthony v. Norfleet, 330 F. Supp. 1211, are the controlling authorities for DC. Your defense playbook against an on-duty officer's no-fault claim is to invoke § 1-624.16(c) and these cases.
If you are an out-of-state PIP claims handler
When you handle a claim involving a DC officer or firefighter injured in a crash, this opinion tells you that DC will not be paying PIP. If your insured is the third party, work the third-party tort suit. The ranking authorities (Wagner v. National Indemnity Co., Mailhut v. Travelers, IML Freight v. Ottosen) are part of a national majority view that workers' compensation exclusivity defeats no-fault PIP claims by the worker against the employer.
Common questions
Q: Can I collect both disability benefits and a no-fault claim against the at-fault civilian driver's insurance?
A: Yes. CMPA exclusivity bars claims against DC as your employer, but it does not affect third-party liability. The civilian driver's no-fault insurer and any tort claim you have against that driver are not barred. Your disability benefits may be subject to subrogation if you recover from the third party.
Q: What if I am injured off-duty in my own vehicle?
A: Then CMPA exclusivity does not apply because you were not in the scope of your employment. You collect under your own private no-fault insurance like any other DC driver.
Q: What about a hit-and-run while on duty in a DC vehicle?
A: CMPA still applies for your DC employer benefits. The "uninsured motorist" route depends on the policy covering the DC vehicle. Some jurisdictions (Maryland in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Rose) have let firefighters collect UM benefits even when employer disability is paid; DC follows the exclusivity-strict view from this opinion. Whether DC's vehicle policy carries UM and how it interacts with CMPA is a question to verify with current DC risk management.
Q: Can the Council change this?
A: Yes. The Council could amend either the No-Fault Law or the CMPA to expressly authorize stacking. As of the date of the opinion, neither had been amended. Watch for legislative changes; if the Council adds an express authorization, the exclusivity argument collapses.
Q: Is this opinion still good in 2026?
A: The CMPA exclusivity clause remains in force, and the No-Fault Law has not been amended to override it. The reasoning continues to apply. Police and firefighters appointed both before and after January 1, 1980 are still under exclusive employer remedies for on-duty injuries.
Q: What is the practical difference between the 1935 Act and the CMPA?
A: The 1935 Act covered DC police and firefighters during the FECA era. CMPA Title XXIII replaced FECA for DC employees in 1979 and now covers police and firefighters appointed on or after January 1, 1980. Both are exclusive against DC. Older hires still draw from the 1935 Act framework as amended.
Background and statutory framework
DC's police and firefighter disability framework has three layers, and getting the right layer is essential to understanding this opinion.
Layer 1: The 1935 Act. The Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act, 49 Stat. 358, ch. 241 (1935), codified at D.C. Code §§ 4-601 et seq., has provided medical, surgical, and hospital benefits and salary continuation for DC police and firefighters injured in the line of duty since 1935. Congress amended the Act in 1957 to bar double recovery between it and FECA. Federal courts have read the Act as displacing common-law tort claims against the government for line-of-duty injuries (Anthony v. Norfleet, 330 F. Supp. 1211 (D.D.C. 1971)).
Layer 2: FECA. Until 1979, work-related injuries to DC employees (other than those covered by the 1935 Act) were handled under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. FECA's exclusivity clause, 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c), bars all other claims against the United States or its agencies for the same injury. The exclusivity provision was added in 1949 to prevent multiple recoveries after the FTCA created new tort exposures. Courts have applied FECA exclusivity strictly to DC employees (Mason v. District of Columbia, 395 A.2d 399 (D.C. 1978); Tredway v. District of Columbia, 403 A.2d 732 (D.C. 1979)).
Layer 3: The CMPA. In 1979, DC enacted the Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act (D.C. Law 2-139), which created Title XXIII to replace FECA for DC employees. The CMPA disability provisions (D.C. Code § 1-624.1 et seq.) covered most DC employees and, for police and firefighters appointed on or after January 1, 1980, covered them too (D.C. Code §§ 1-633.2(a)(B), 1-633.3(1)(p), 1-637.1(m)(4); Brown v. Jefferson, 451 A.2d 74 (D.C. 1982)).
The CMPA's exclusivity clause (D.C. Code § 1-624.16(c)) tracks 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c) almost word for word, with "District" substituted for "United States." It bars all other liability, in any forum, for the same injury.
When DC enacted the No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act in 1982, the question was whether it implicitly repealed the CMPA's exclusivity for on-duty motor vehicle injuries. The Corporation Counsel said no for three reasons:
-
No legislative history. The "voluminous" legislative history of the No-Fault Law contains no indication that the Council ever considered amending or repealing the workers' compensation system's exclusivity for on-duty injuries.
-
The No-Fault Law preserves employer compensation duties. Sections 8(a)(1), 11(b)(2), and 11(b)(4) of the No-Fault Law expressly leave intact the existing duties of employers (including the District as employer) to pay compensation under existing statutes.
-
Implied repeals are disfavored. Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982), and Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974), both say the implied repeal of an existing statute requires clear legislative intent. Mere overlap is not enough.
Reading the No-Fault Law and the pre-existing workers' compensation statutes in pari materia, the Corporation Counsel concluded that DC employees may recover no-fault benefits in excess of workers' compensation, but only from insurers other than the District government itself. Several other jurisdictions had reached similar conclusions (Wagner v. National Indemnity Co., 422 A.2d 1061 (Pa. 1980); Mailhut v. Travelers Insurance Co., 377 N.E.2d 681 (Mass. 1978); IML Freight v. Ottosen, 538 P.2d 296 (Utah 1975)).
The Corporation Counsel acknowledged that some jurisdictions had gone the other way (notably Michigan, New York, Maryland), but DC followed the exclusivity-strict majority view.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- DC Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, D.C. Law 4-155, D.C. Code §§ 35-2101 et seq.
- Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; § 8116(c) (exclusivity)
- Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act, 49 Stat. 358 (1935), D.C. Code §§ 4-601 et seq.
- DC Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act, D.C. Law 2-139, D.C. Code §§ 1-624.1 et seq.; § 1-624.16(c) (exclusivity)
Cases:
- Brown v. Jefferson, 451 A.2d 74 (D.C. 1982), police and firefighters appointed after Jan. 1, 1980 are CMPA-covered
- Mason v. District of Columbia, 395 A.2d 399 (D.C. 1978), FECA exclusivity strictly applied to DC employees
- Tredway v. District of Columbia, 403 A.2d 732 (D.C. 1979), exclusivity even when no compensation payable
- Anthony v. Norfleet, 330 F. Supp. 1211 (D.D.C. 1971), comprehensive scheme presumed exclusive
- United States v. Lorenzetti, 467 U.S. 167 (1984), FECA exclusivity scope
- Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982), implied repeals disfavored
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974), same
- Wagner v. National Indemnity Co., 422 A.2d 1061 (Pa. 1980), workers' comp exclusivity defeats no-fault PIP
- Mailhut v. Travelers Insurance Co., 377 N.E.2d 681 (Mass. 1978), same
License
This opinion is published by the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Per the DC.gov terms of use, content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, which permits commercial use, redistribution, and modification with attribution.
Source
Original opinion text
•
~ntttrumtttt nf tift iistrirt nf <ttnlumbia
OF.FICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
DISTRICT BUILDING
WASHINGTON.
D. C.
20004
IN REPLY REFER TO:
LCD:L&O:RND:gbt
(84-60)
December 20. 1984
OPINION OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
SUBJECT: Application of No-Fault Law to
On-Duty Police and Fire Fighters.
Theodore Coleman, Chief
District of Columbia Fire Department
1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
•
Dear Chief Coleman:
This will reply to your request dated February 22, 1984,
with respect to the application to on-duty police and firefighters of the Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act,
D.C. Law 4-155, effective September 18, 1982, D.C. Code SS35-2101
et seq. (1981) (hereinafter the No-Fault Law). It appears from
your memorandum and the attachments, as well as from information
received June 25, 1984, from the Metropolitan Police Department,
that the following situation prompts your inquiry.
Firefighters and police officers who have been involved
in on-duty motor vehicle accidents while operating vehicles owned
by the District Government have through their attorney written
their departments claiming to be entitled to benefits under the
No-Fault Law, in addition to benefits already available to them
under special statutory provisions for District police and firefighters. I have concluded that such employees are not entitled
to additional benefits from the District government.
This conclusion has a complex statutory background.
•
For many years, work-related injuries to Federal and
District employees were covered by the Federal Employees
Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. S8101 et seq. FECA is by its
terms an exclusive remedy. See, ~., Griffin v. United States,
703 F.2d 321 (8th Cir. 1983); Mason v. District of Columbia, 395
A.2d 399, 402 (D.C. 1978). That is to say, an employee who
- 2 -
•
•
suffers an injury resulting in death or disability in ,the scope
of his employment is limited to the remedies under FECA. See
united States v. Lorenzetti,
u.S.
, 104 S.Ct. 2284 (1984); 5
U.S.C. §8116(c).
This exclusivity:provision was enacted in 1949
to avoid multiple recoveries by injured employees and excessive
costs to the United States due to the passage of several acts,
such as the Federal Tort Claims Act, waiving sovereign immunity
of the United States in certain damage actions. Mason v. District of Columbia, supra, 395 A.2d at 402. Thus it was held
that, where FECA applies, that remedy is exclusive for a District
of Columbia employee, even though under the facts of a particular
case no compensation is payable, or the Act fails to provide for
the full extent of the employee's damages. Tredway v. District
of Columbia, 403 A.2d 732, 734-735 (D.C. 1979), cert. denied, 444
u.S. 867 (1979). However, District of Columbia police and firefighters have long had a separate system to pay for medical and
surgical services and hospital treatment and for the continuation of salary benefits for injuries incurred in the line of
duty. Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act, 49
Stat. 358, ch. 241 (1935), as amended, D.C. Code §§4-601 et seq.
(1981) (the Act).
In 1957, Congress amended that Act to prevent
double recoveries under it and under FECA. See Brown v. Jefferson, 451 A.2d 74 (D.C. 1982). It has been held that the Act
precludes the Government's common-law tort liability to District
police and firefighters for injuries incurred in the line of
duty:
Where Congress has established a comprehensive
system to compensate injured employees, that
scheme should be presumed to be the exclusive
remedy against the Government. Anthony v.
Norfleet, 330 F. Supp. 1211, 1213 (D.D.C. 1971).
The District of Columbia is no longer under the FECA system
because it set up its own disability compensation system in Title
XXIII of the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit
Personnel Act, D. C. Law 2-139, effective March 3, 1979, (D.C.
Code, §1-624.1 et seq.) (CMPA). Police and firefighters appointed after January 1, 1980, come under the disability compensation
provisions of CMPA. See D. C. Code, §§1-633.2 (a)(B), 1-633.3(1)
(p), 1-637.1(m)(4). Brown v. Jefferson, supra, 451 A.2d at 74,
75. The compensation program is similar to the federal program
it superseded, providing for medical and related services in case
of injury in the performance of duty. CMPA also contains an
exclusivity clause much like its federal counterpart. Compare 5
U.S.C. §8116(c) with D.C. Code, §1-624.16(c). In most respects,
it is virtually identical to the federal statute save for the
substitution of the "District" for "United States". The CMPA
exclusivity clause reads as follows:
•
The liability of the District of Columbia
government or an instrumentality thereof,
under this subchapter or any extension
thereof with respect to the injury or death
- 3 -
•
of an employee, is exclusive and instead of
all other liability of the District of
Columbia government or the instrumentality to the employee, his or her legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin
and any other person otherwise entitled to
recover damages from the District of Columbia
or the instrumentality because of the injury
or death in a direct judicial proceeding, in
a civil action, or in admiralty, or by an
administrative, or judicial proceeding under
a workmen's compensation statute or under a
federal tort liability statute. This subchapter does not apply to a master or a
member of a crew of a vessel.
Thus, prior to the enactment of the No-Fault law, all
compensation systems established by statute provided exclusive
remedies for District employees, including police and firefighters, who suffered work-related injuries. Furthermore,
courts had uniformly held that such statutes precluded further
Government liability for work-related injuries.
•
The voluminous legislative history of the No-Fault law
contains no indication that the Council of the District of
Columbia ever considered amending or repealing the exclusivity of
the compensation system already established for work-related
injuries to District employees. Normally, repeals by implication
are disfavored. Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 u.S.
461, 468 (1982); 1A C. Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction §§23.09, '23.10 (4th ed. 1972); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S.
535, 549-551 (1974).
It is clear from sections 8(a)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the NoFault Law, D.C. Code §35-2107(a)(1) and 35-2110(b)(2), that
enactment of the No-Fault law in no way lessens the duty of
employers in general to pay compensation to their workers under
existing statutes. Similarly, the No-Fault law has left intact
the existing statutory duties of the District as an employer.
See section 11(b)(4), D.C. Code §35-2110(b)(4). Thus, it appears
from a reading of these sections of the No-Fault Law and preexisting compensation statutes in pari materia that District
employees may recover benefits Tn excess of the benefits provided
from compensation statutes, but they can only recover from
insurers other than the District Government. Cf. Freeman v.
Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 259 S.E. 2d 36 (Ga. 1979); Boothman v.
Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 450 A.2d 139 (Pa.
Sup. 1982); Augostine v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty
Insurance Co., 437 A.2d 985 (Pa. Sup. 1981).
•
The conclusion reached herein, maintaining the exclusivity
of workmen's compensation remedies against the District under the
No-Fault law, is in accord with the best reasoned decisions
interpreting the no-fault laws of other states. See Wagner v.
".
•
- 4 -
•
National Indemnity Co., 422 A.2d 1061 (Pa. 1980); Mailhut v.
Travelers Insurance Co., 377 N.E.2d 681 (Mass. 1978) (persons
entitled to workmen's compensation from any state or federal
service are excluded from PIP berie~its); Swafford v. Transit
Casualty Co., 486 F. Supp. 175 (N.D. Ga. 1980); IML Freight, Inc.
v. Ottosen, 538 P.2d 296 (Utah 1975); cf., Demetriadis v. United
states Postal Service, 465 F. Supp. 59~(E.D.N.Y. 1979) (FECA is
exclusive remedy); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States,
490 F. Supp. 328 (E.D.N.Y. 1980); Griffin v. United States, 703
F. 2 d 32 1 ( 8 th Ci r. 1 983 ) * /
Sincerely,
h~c:..~1
Inez Smith Reid
Corporation Counsel, D.C •
•
•
*/ But see Brown v. Boston Old Colony Insurance Co., 275 S.E. 2d
651 (Ga. 1981)(statute had been amended since Freeman, supra);
Mathis v. Interstate Motor Freight System, 289 N.W.2d 708 (Mich.
1980) (both insurers and sel'f-insurers required to pay under
Michigan No-Fault statute); Record v. Metropolitan Transit
Commission, 284 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. 1979); Affiliated FM Insurance
Co. v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co., 641 S.W.2d 49,51 (Ky. App.
1982) citing United States Fidelit & Guarant Co. v. Smith, 580
S.W. 2d 216 (Ky. 1979 (by implication; Ryder Truck Lines Inc.
v. Maiorano, 44 N.Y. 2d 364, 405 N.Y.S. 2d 66, 376 N.E. 2d 1311
(1978); Carriers Insurance Company v. Burakowski, 93 Misc. 2d
100, 402 N.Y.S. 2d 383 (1978); Cady v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.,
113 Misc. 2d 1080, 450 N.Y.S. 2d 679 (1980); Mayor and Cit~
Council of Baltimore v. Rose, 47 Md. App. 481, 424 A.2d 16
(Md.Ct.Spec.App. 1981) (fireman entitled to recover from city
under uninsured motorist coverage notwithstanding payment of
disability benefits under the fire and police employees
retirement system); Wellington v. City of New York, 422 N.Y.S. 2d
329, 101 Misc. 2d 970 (Cir.Ct.Bronx 1979) (police could recover
sick leave and no-fault before statute was amended to preclude
such double recovery).