Plaintiff, a police detective, while riding as a front seat passenger of an unmarked squad car, was injured in auto accident when squad car was rear-ended at a stoplight. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund erred in denying Plaintiff's application for a line-of-duty disability pension, as Plaintiff's injuries occurred during his shift while performing duties in furtherance of his job as a detective, and he was engaged in a function unique to police officers.(CHAPMAN and CATES, concurring.)
Plaintiff, a fire department lieutenant, applied for disability pension. Remanded to Board with directions to hold a new hearing on Plaintiff's application. Plaintiff requested a leave of absence, citing her anxiety and her treatment by her coworkers. Fire Protection District granted her a 12-week unpaid leave of absence under FMLA, but required that she submit a written complaint as to allegations of sexual harassment. District then issued Plaintiff a "Notice of Interrogation" to investigate allegations of sexual harassment, but District suspended hearing indefinitely and "Interrogation" is thus ongoing. Board was biased against Plaintiff, as 3 of the 5 Board members were also firefighters specifically named as antagonists in Plaintiff's 16-page written complaint as to the District. Remanded to Board with directions to hold a new hearing on Plaintiff's application. (McLAREN and JORGENSEN, concurring.)
Plaintiff firefighter filed complaint for administrative review of an amended decision of Board of Trustees of Firefighters’ Pension Fund, granting Plaintiff monthly line-of-duty disability pension benefits in a certain specified amount. Interpreting payroll clause of Section 4-110 of Pension Code, Plaintiff’s salary attached to rank is to be determined as of the last day Plaintiff was paid by the City. (HOLDRIDGE and O’BRIEN, concurring.)
Under plain language of Section 5-218 of Pension Code and Section 12-1006 of Code of Civil Procedure, widow's annuity provided to surviving spouse of a deceased police officer, as with any other benefit granted by a public employee pension plan, is expressly exempt from collection. Court erred in entering turnover order entered in supplementary collection proceedings as to surviving spouse. (CONNORS and HARRIS, concurring.)
Record contained sufficient evidence to support Appeals Council’s determination that claimant, who applied for Social Security disability benefits, was not disabled as of last insured date, even though ALJ had previously found that claimant was disabled based on claimant’s cervical radiculopathy, major joint dysfunction, history of shoulder impairment and obesity. Appeals Council could properly find that claimant could perform range of light work, and that claimant’s various impairments were not as severe as found by ALJ, since record showed that: (1) claimant never discussed neck or shoulder pain at any of his relevant doctor visits; (2) claimant’s disc herniation was only mild at relevant time; and (3) there were never any evidence showing that claimant’s neck pain was debilitating on or before his last insured date. Fact that claimant’s condition(s) may have worsened after last insured date was immaterial. Also, Appeals Council was not required to accept ALJ’s credibility findings with respect to claimant’s contention that he had limitations of being more than 10 percent off-task and needing unscheduled breaks during work day, since although ALJ’s findings may have been supported by substantial evidence, Appeals Council’s contrary findings were also supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, Appeals Council’s focus on fact that claimant had only infrequent treatments prior to his last insured date was not improper, where record did not support claimant’s claim that he lacked insurance to see his treating physician during relevant time period.
In action seeking recovery for plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos for two-week period while working for defendants as independent contractor removing refinery replacement heaters, Dist. Ct. did not err in excluding testimony from plaintiff’s expert witness concerning medical causation of said exposure to plaintiff’s lung cancer, where Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that expert’s “cumulative exposure theory” was essentially based on unsupported opinion that every exposure to asbestos, however brief, is substantial contributing factor to cumulative exposure that causes cancer. Moreover, law of causation required that plaintiff prove that defendants’ acts or products were substantial contributing factor to plaintiff’s illness, and de minimis exposure was not sufficient to establish said causation. Also, plaintiff was not entitled to new trial, even though defendant conducted investigation into belated claim made by one juror that she may have attended birthday party with plaintiff, since: (1) investigator asked only third-party about birthday party; (2) questions asked by investigator did not pertain to substance of case; and (3) there was no evidence that juror was intimidated by investigation.
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion to remove to federal court plaintiff-employee’s state court Ill. Wage Payment and Collection Act action, alleging that defendant had failed to directly pay her money that had accrued in defendant’s Paid Days Leave plan, where plaintiff’s claim was completely preempted by ERISA. This is so, because: (1) plaintiff’s state-law claim could have been brought as claim under ERISA, since subject plan qualified as ERISA welfare benefit plan as funds in plan were used for qualifying medical expenses; and (2) defendant’s decision not to pay plaintiff funds in plan did not implicate legal duty independent of ERISA.
Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff-employee’s motion to transfer his ERISA action that challenged defendant-employer’s termination of his health insurance for nonpayment of appropriate premium, where plaintiff alleged that forum selection clause in health plan, that specified that any action be filed in Central District of Illinois, was invalid in light of venue provision in section 1132(e)(2) of ERISA. Forum selection clauses in ERISA plans are controlling unless ERISA invalidates it, and nothing in section 1132(e)(2) expressly invalidates forum-selection clauses in employee-benefits plans. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s argument that under section 1132(e)(2), he could choose any of listed venues without regard to forum-selection clause in plan. (Dissent filed.)
Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits based on claimant’s back condition, diabetes, anxiety, depression and suicidal preoccupation. While vocational expert opined that claimant could work as either hand packer, machine operator or factory inspector given ALJ’s description of claimant’s limitations, ALJ’s hypothetical failed to account for claimant’s moderate limitation in concentration, and ALJ had no substantial basis to conclude that claimant would not be off task more than 10 percent of his work time. Also, ALJ could not ignore treating physician’s records that supported claimant’s claim that he suffered black-outs and other serious difficulties in concentration. Moreover, ALJ erred in basing claimant’s ability to perform full-time work on claimant’s record of part-time work, where said part-time employer had been generously accommodating claimant’s limitations.
Record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits arising out of claimant’s brain hemorrhage, as well as her short-term memory loss, ADHD, anxiety and fibromyalgia. While ALJ believed that claimant had good recovery from brain hemorrhage, that her seizure condition was well controlled, and that claimant engaged in wide range of daily activities that permitted her to work as counter clerk, cashier or routing clerk, record showed that, since onset of her disabilities, claimant worked only part-time jobs that required that claimant receive help from her co-workers. Moreover, record contained corroborative testimony from claimant’s fiancé that was not addressed by ALJ, and ALJ improperly discounted opinions from claimant’s treating physicians/psychiatrists regarding claimant's inability to perform gainful employment, in favor of agency consultants who had never examined claimant.
