Employee Benefits

Plaintiff, a former police officer, filed application for disability pension benefits, for injury from a fall while he was pushing a stranded motorist's vehicle out of the snow. Board's finding that Plaintiff was not disabled was against manifest weight of the evidence. As the stuck vehicle was partially obstructing traffic and was blocking an entrance to an apartment complex, Plaintiff was performing his duty of keeping the roadway clear of obstructions and allowing tenants to enter and exit their residences. Plaintiff's actions in pushing vehicle out of snow qualify as an "act of duty" for which he is entitled to a line-of-duty pension. (KNECHT and DeARMOND, concurring.)

Retired former employee of City filed class action suit to challenge City's reduction of percentage it contributed to retiree health insurance premiums. This benefit is not a pension or retirement system, and is not a benefit that results from membership in a protected public pension or retirement systems provided for under Pension Code, and thus is not a benefit protected by pension protection clause from being diminished or impaired by City. Disclaimer in City's Personnel Ordinance were for information purposes and did not constitute an offer or promise, and thus did not provide contractual rights. (McDADE and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

Court held that city's police officers had received more in pension benefits than they were entitled to because their pensions had been incorrectly calculated. City's labor attorney and police union's attorney signed a "Letter of Understanding" in 2002 as to benefits and calculation of same.Although retirees may have proceeded in reliance on Pension Board's original computations, public interest in enforcing Pension Code and ensuring solvency of local fund make take priority over retirees' expectations, and thus City's claims were not barred by laches or estoppel. Arbitrator did not address whether calculation method conformed to Pension Code or Department of Insurance regulations. Governing contract is the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), unmodified by Letter of Agreement, and CBA does not support application of Letter. (CUNNINGHAM and HARRIS, concurring.)

Plaintiff filed action for review of a final decision denying him line-of-duty disability pension benefits. Plaintiff claimed he could no longer work as a firefighter for village because he suffered from PTSD triggered by a specific duty-related incident. Board found Plaintiff permanently disabled and entitled to a nonduty disability pension based on his preexisting physical and psychological conditions. Record supports Board's finding that an act of duty was not a causative factor contributing to Plaintiff's permanent disability. (PUCINSKI and WALKER, concurring.)

Illinois Pension Code vests IMRF (Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund) as administrative agency with original and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to issue final decision regarding whether county employee has a valid claim for IMRF retirement benefits. A participating municipality, such as the County, has no subject matter jurisdiction to render a final administrative decision addressing eligibility of employee for IMRF enrollment and retirement benefits.(CARTER and O'BRIEN, concurring.)