Why are elected officials so gawd damn stupid? Don't they realize that the media will sniff it out sooner or later? I hope this give reason for this mayor and council to look for other employment.


A Connecticut police officer who tried in vain to save the life of a dying 10-year-old boy -- only to be notified by city officials that his heroic effort was not part of his job -- met Friday with city officials who promised to clarify the notice, FoxNews.com has learned.

New Britain Police Officer Frank Barbagiovanni met with Mayor Tim O'Brien after local media reported on the notice the officer received from city attorneys in connection to a Nov. 11 incident in Barbagiovanni tried to revive the boy, who later died at an area hospital.

The notice, Barbagiovanni said, indicated that the incident was not "causally related to a work-related condition" and that city officials would contest workers compensation if he applied for it.

Phil Sherwood, O'Brien's communications director, told FoxNews.com that said city officials are now in the process of crafting a response to Barbagiovanni that will justify the "legal rationale" as to why the initial notice indicated that rescue efforts weren't part of his job, though it remains unclear how the city would rule on a potential workers compensation claim.

Barbagiovanni replied to the initial notice in December -- a three-page response that also went to O'Brien, his police union and Chief William Gagliardi -- and had not received a response until local media outlets began reporting on the matter.

"I never got word from anybody," Barbagiovanni told FoxNews.com on Friday. "Nothing -- now all of sudden they wanted to meet with me today."

Barbagiovanni, 33, said O'Brien personally apologized to him and that he regretted the delay on behalf of city attorneys. The married, six-year veteran of the department said he's now waiting for a second notice to clarify that he'd be covered if he contracts any communicable diseases after being exposed to vomit during efforts to resuscitate the boy.

"It's still unresolved," he said. "But I feel the same way as I did when I first started [the job]. You do get to help people out, and I like that. But now I'm a little nervous about whether the people in City Hall are going to back me up or back anybody else up. It just gets you a little nervous."

Barbagiovanni continued: "Now that people know about it, I feel they're going to do the right thing and squash it. That's all I've been asking for -- cover me if, God forbid, something happens in the future."

Barbagiovanni has not claimed any medical benefits, and blood tests have indicated he is in good health. Another blood test will be given in three months, he said.

Sherwood told FoxNews.com following the 30-minute meeting that Barbagiovanni should be recognized for being a "quintessential" public servant.

"It's not city policy and it's not going to be city policy that CPR is not part of a police officer's duties," Sherwood said. "What should have happened and didn't happen is that the officer asked for a response (from the city) and didn't get one."

Sherwood said Barbagiovanni did "everything appropriate" and acted courageously when he tried to revive the boy until responding paramedics took over.

"We're sorry that he's essentially been traumatized for a second time," he said. "Not getting a simple response back from bureaucrats is not how the city wants to conduct itself."

Barbagiovanni, for his part, said he would not hesitate to attempt to saving another person's life despite the "stress" of the entire ordeal.

"Otherwise, I'd work another job," he said. "A human wouldn't let another human sit down on the floor and die. I'd definitely do it again. You expect the city to back you up, that's why you take chances."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/20/connecticut-officer-who-tried-to-save-dying-boy-to-receive-clarification-after/?test=latestnews#ixzz1k2wNDSvK

That is downright detestable. The man is a cop, of course it was part of his job. If I remember right it's to serve and Protect

IM confused about what 'condition' they refer to,,,was there an unemployment compensation request? and if so, for what? and how did they prove that the 'condition' was the effect of him saving this boys life,,,,?


seems more sensational than detailed,,,I will wait to hear more,,,

I think what's going on is he was wondering about compensation if contracted a disease from performing mouth to mouth, which is part of CPR which they are taught.

To me being a cop is more about helping people then kicking in doors and chasing criminals.

I agree

so do i

I agree also

Did I have you figured wrong.?

They used to give commendations for Cops saving lives.

I guess the ones in charge misread and thought they were to give condemnations.

they use to be called peace officers....
now they are called law enforcement

There's something missing . . . This is about a workers' comp claim. Workers' comp claims are filed for reimbursement of injuries sustained while at work. What injury did this policeman sustain? There's a reference to "traumatized a second time," but I don't see anything else. But you don't file a WC claim unless you have had medical bills.

Workers' comp laws are determined by the states and the employer can't change them. The employer can only say whether in their opinion, the incident occurred when the person was officially working. If the worker disagrees, as far as I know most states have a Commission that would adjudicate. All this would be ONLY to determine who would pay the cost of medical treatment for the employee. If WC doesn't pay it, the employee's health insurance would (or not, depending on the policy). This has nothing to do with whether the policeman should or should not have helped the boy. I think this is just a typical example of inflammatory journalism.

The wording about causal relationship, in a letter from an attorney, indicates to me that the claim has already been contested and an independent medical evaluation has been performed. There are probably still some steps the policeman can take to get this appealed. But basically, this is all about whether the incident occurred on the job on not. NOT whether it was the right thing to do.

The officer never filed a claim. the city sent him a letter stating that if he contracted anything he wouldn't be covered under WC. Which, in my opinion (not that it matters) is horrendous.

As I understand it, a policeman is always on the job. Just because he's off work doesn't mean I can race by him at 120+ and get away with it.

This is just a poorly written story, author must've went to ASU!

Yup, they even have their own medal of honor for doing just that, unfortunately it's not like it used to be. Most of the cops now days are just adrenaline junkies who want the action and are in it for all the WRONG reasons.

I wonder what that whole 'protect' thing is about then,,,,

It's about helping people.

I don't think the problem here has much to do with police per se.

Its a problem with bureaucrats, administrators, accountants, lawyers, and the like everywhere, in every industry.

Someone was just trying really hard to do their job really well, and lost sight of common sense.

Their job was to protect their employer from any and all possible workers compensation claims that they could.

They went overboard with that.