Police Officer R.D. was injured on duty as the result of a car accident. He was placed on the medical roll. He had been on the medical roll only one time during his 16 years of service to the Department. For over 30 years, the officer owned a small painting company consisting of two employees. For years, the officer had been an extremely generous donor to police-involved charities and police officers suffering financial crisis. An anonymous complaint was made to the Department alleging that Officer R.D. was committing fraud because he continued to "work" at his painting company while on the medical roll. The Medical Integrity Unit deployed teams of agents to the case who conducted countless hours of undercover surveillance. The Superintendent, discounting this officer's stellar history, filed charges against the officer and sought his termination.At the hearing, we attacked the definition of the word "work." We argued that the Superintendent's evidence failed to prove that Officer R.D. performed "work" but rather that his conduct was nothing more than the performance of administrative tasks, not unlike a landlord collecting rent from his tenants. The Police Board of Chicago agreed. In its decision, the Board criticized the Police Department's policy calling it "not sufficiently clear." The Board went a step further holding that it was "incumbent on the Department to more clearly communicate" with its employees its policies and definitions of terms. This victory will protect future officers from similar arbitrary prosecution. The Officer was found NOT GUILTY of all charges and awarded significant monetary damages. 14 PB 2877 (2015)