Shon K. Worner, Esq., Campbell Durrant, P.C. | October 2026
On August 20, 2026, the Municipal Police Officers’ Education and Training Commission (“MPOETC”) submitted a proposed regulation, Law Enforcement Mental Health Evaluations, to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (“IRRC”) regarding Act 59 of 2020. MPOETC’s proposed rulemaking was published in the September 5, 2026, edition of the PA Bulletin. The proposal includes a 30-day public comment period which closed on October 5, 2026. Campbell Durrant, P.C. submitted a comment for the IRRC’s consideration. IRRC’s comments are due to MPOETC on November 4, 2026.
As we have written previously, Act 59 of 2020 provides, in part, for mandatory evaluations for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) for law enforcement officers employed in police departments of counties, cities, boroughs, incorporated towns or townships, and county DA offices. Specifically, Act 59 provides that, “As a condition of continued employment, and without cost to the law enforcement officer, a law enforcement agency shall provide a law enforcement officer with a mental health evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder by a licensed mental health professional” under three circumstances: (1) upon request of the law enforcement officer; (2) upon recommendation of a police chief or other supervising law enforcement officer; or (3) within 30 days of an incident of the use of lethal force during the course of law enforcement duties.
If an evaluation is the result of an officer’s request or recommendation of the chief of police or supervising law enforcement officer, it should be scheduled within 10 calendar days. The evaluation is conducted by a licensed mental health professional at the employer’s cost. Under the law, when a licensed mental health professional determines that a law enforcement officer has symptoms of PTSD, the law enforcement officer shall be provided with treatment under a physician’s care until the physician determines in writing that the officer is able to resume full duties. Until the officer is cleared, they must be placed on administrative duty. An officer must also be placed on administrative duty if the officer fails to undergo a mental health evaluation when required to do so under Act 59.
Act 59 requires the MPOETC to promulgate temporary and permanent regulations. Pursuant to those statutory requirements, MPOETC issued temporary regulations published at 51 Pa.B. 1512 (March 20, 2021), effective July 14, 2021, which expired in July 2023. MPOETC’s August 20, 2026 proposed regulations are intended to replace the prior temporary regulations.
MPOETC’s proposed regulations, if enacted, would include additional definitions with the goal of assisting the regulated community (i.e., law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers) to comply with Act 59. Some of the proposed terms include: “essential job functions of a police officer,” “fitness for duty evaluation,” “lethal force,” “licensed mental health professional,” and “licensed physician.”
MPOETC’s proposed regulations delineate duties for Act 59 compliance as to a law enforcement agency, a law enforcement officer, and the commission (i.e., MPOETC.)
These duties include requiring a law enforcement agency to provide a licensed mental health professional with a specific MPOETC evaluation form for completion. Upon receipt of a mental health professional’s diagnosis that a law enforcement officer is exhibiting symptoms of PTSD and is not clear to perform full duties, a law enforcement agency would be required to place an officer on ‘administrative duty’ status and notify the commission within five (5) days of the status change utilizing MPOTEC’s TACS system.
Under the proposed regulations, a law enforcement officer is required to attend and participate in the mental health evaluation pursuant to Act 59. Additionally, MPOETC is proposing an additional requirement that a law enforcement officer who is employed by more than one law enforcement agency notify those agencies if they have been placed on ‘administrative duty’ status under Act 59 so that those other employing agencies can comply with the administrative duty requirements. The commission believes that these requirements will help to ensure that an officer’s recovery is not hindered by having to perform full duties at all employing agencies until such time that they are cleared by a licensed physician to resume their full duties.
Act 59 and MPOETC’s proposed regulations also require maintenance of confidentiality. For example, a law enforcement agency’s notification to MPOETC should only indicate that an officer’s status is to be changed to ‘administrative duty’ and no other information concerning the evaluation, diagnosis or treatment is to be included. All employee medical information must be maintained and stored confidentially, and in a file separate from the employee’s personnel file.
Compliance with MPOETC’s proposed regulations will likely impose an additional financial burden on law enforcement agencies. For example, in addition to covering the costs associated with an Act 59 PTSD evaluation, the MPOETC indicates in the proposed regulations that the law enforcement agency bears the cost of any subsequent treatment as well. Our firm submitted a comment on this point since this position is arguably at odds with the language in Act 59 itself.
Additionally, the requirement to place a law enforcement officer on ‘administrative duty’ until they are cleared by a licensed physician to return to full duty could create an additional financial obligation for a law enforcement agency, as a municipality may need to schedule additional officers, perhaps requiring such work to be paid at an overtime rate, to cover for an officer who is placed on administrative duty. Our firm also submitted a comment relating to “administrative duty” since neither Act 59 nor the proposed regulations offer substantial guidance on this point. For example, neither Act 59 nor the proposed regulations provides a duration/limitation on how long a law enforcement agency is required to maintain this status, there is no definition of what types of work “administrative duty” comprises, both fail to indicate what a law enforcement agency might do if there is no or limited “administrative duty” work available, and they do not account for a scenario where there might be multiple law enforcement officers on “administrative duty” in addition to other employees who may be on modified duty due to other, non-Act 59 reasons, which could cause a real administrative burden for the law enforcement agency. Furthermore, while an exact cost is hard to estimate, costs would likely vary depending on the size of the law enforcement agency, the length of time the administrative duty status lasts, the number of officers who might be unavailable to work full duty at any given time, and overall staffing coverage.
Finally, the proposed regulations also note that depending on the circumstances, other preexisting statutes (e.g., Pennsylvania’s Heart & Lung Act and Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act) may overlap with an officer’s mental health evaluation and treatment for PTSD. Please contact the attorneys at Campbell Durrant, P.C., to help navigate Act 59 compliance and MPOETC’s regulations.