Employee Benefits

White v. The Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago

White v. The Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Pension Code
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 132315
Decision Date: 
Friday, August 29, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
REYES
(Court opinion corrected 10/17/14.) Police officer filed petition with Pension Board seeking pension credit for two prior service periods with City under sections 5-214(b) and 5-214(c) of Pension Code. Officer had previously worked for office of corporation counsel and as administrative assistant/police aide for City Police Department. Amended version of Section 5-214(b) of Pension Code does not expressly prescribe that amendment be applied retroactively to already pending petitions. Amendment is substantive in nature, as it limits pension service credit to police officers who are on leave and continue to remain in sworn status. Thus, amendment should not be applied retroactively to officer's claim. Officer's work as a police aide consisted of investigative work, and she presented sufficient evidence to satisfy requirements of Section 5-214(c) of Pension Pension Code, and should be awarded applicable pension service credit. (HALL, concurring; LAMPKIN, dissenting.)

Russ v. Smith Water Market Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Russ v. Smith Water Market Inc.
Civil Court
ERISA
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3613
Decision Date: 
October 15, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in finding in favor of defendants in ERISA action seeking delinquent pension and welfare payments to plaintiffs based upon terms of collective bargaining agreement calling for defendants' hiring of second driver position. While Dist. Ct. found that no actual agreement had been entered into by parties so as to support said payments, record suggested that parties had agreed to terms of collective bargaining agreement where defendant had made payments to pension funds according to other terms of disputed collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, under Labor Relations Management Act, written agreement was required for defendants’ participation in pension or welfare plan, such that defendants could not deny validity of disputed collective bargaining agreement, where there was no other agreement in existence at time of defendants’ payments to funds.

Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority
Civil Court
Pension Code
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
September 24, 2014
Docket Number: 
Nos. 117638, 117713 and 117728 Cons.
District: 
1st Dist.
This case presents question as to whether defendants could properly bring about changes to health care benefits for retired CTA employees, where said changes were brought about under certain amendments to Pension Code under Public Act 95-0708. Appellate Court found that Retirement Plan, as opposed to Retiree Health Care Trust formed under Public Act 95-0708, must continue to pay for health care benefits for certain class of retirees, because said benefits were vested rights under original retirement plan agreement. In their petition for leave to appeal, defendants assert that Health Care Trust was solely responsible for providing health care benefits and for setting benefit levels to ensure adequate maintenance of funds, and that Appellate Court ruling conflicted with amendments to Pension Code. Plaintiffs-current CTA employees filed separate petition for leave to appeal that challenged Appellate Court ruling that current CTA employees lacked standing to challenge any reduction in said health benefits, where said benefits were subject to grievance procedures set forth in collective bargaining agreements to which said plaintiffs were not parties, and where plaintiffs only remedy was to file unfair labor practice charge against union. Also, defendant-CTA filed separate petition for leave to appeal with respect to Appellate Court’s finding that plaintiffs stated viable promissory estoppel claim arising out of alleged promise that defendants would maintain fully-paid health care benefits, where CTA argued that plaintiffs failed to state viable promissory estoppel claim due to lack of allegation that municipal officer possessed express authority to make such alleged promise.

Browning v. Colvin

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Browning v. Colvin
Civil Court
Social Security
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3836
Decision Date: 
September 4, 2014
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Evansville Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits based upon claimant’s mental disability, obesity and defect in her hip joint. ALJ could not invalidate claimant’s 68 IQ score based on claim that claimant possessed greater intellect due to fact that she displayed sarcasm to examining psychologist. Moreover, ALJ failed to ask psychologist relevant question as to likelihood that claimant could ever perform normal employment tasks and additionally understated claimant’s work-related limitations when seeking opinion from vocational expert. ALJ also failed to consider combination of claimant’s impairments when determining that claimant could do sedentary work or move out of parent's home and work outside her geographic area.

Scrogham v. Colvin

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Scrogham v. Colvin
Civil Court
Social Security
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3601
Decision Date: 
August 27, 2014
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., New Albany Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits arising out of claimant’s back condition, as well as his hypertension, arthritis and morbid obesity, where ALJ found claimant less than credible and failed to give significant weight to opinions of treating physicians. Remand was required where ALJ failed to give reason why she failed to give weight to opinions of several treating physicians who supported claimant's application for disability benefits and only selectively looked at portions of consulting physician’s report to determine that claimant was capable of certain work. ALJ further failed to consider nature of claimant’s treatment, which might have explained any inconsistencies in claimant’s alleged inability to perform physical tasks.

Goins v. Colvin

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Goins v. Colvin
Civil Court
Social Security
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3729
Decision Date: 
August 19, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Record failed to support ALJ denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits, where claimant alleged that she could no longer work due to acute pain associated with herniated spinal disk, and where ALJ found that claimant was not credible. ALJ, as well as consulting physicians who found that claimant could perform some work, failed to consider crucial 2010 MRI that contained medical evidence supporting claimant’s complaints of back pain and headaches. Moreover, ALJ failed to consider claimant’s obesity as negative factor with respect to her ability to work and further failed to explain why claimant’s credibility was important factor, where there was no evidence to question genuineness of 2010 MRI, claimant’s obesity or grave spinal condition that was revealed in 2010 MRI.

Moon v. Colvin

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Moon v. Colvin
Civil Court
Social Security
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3636
Decision Date: 
August 14, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits, where claimant asserted that she suffered from chronic migraine headaches, as well as other conditions associated with her exceptional obesity that prevented her from working. Although ALJ found that claimant suffered from severe combination of impairments but could still perform certain sedentary work, Ct. found that ALJ failed to sufficiently account for her chronic migraine headaches with respect to her ability to do any sedentary work. Ct. also observed that ALJ misconstrued evidence regarding frequency and severity of claimant’s migraine headaches.

Temme v. Bemis Co., Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Temme v. Bemis Co., Inc.
Civil Court
Attorney Fees
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-1085
Decision Date: 
August 6, 2014
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in awarding plaintiff $405,053.75 in attorney fees after parties settled lawsuit in which plaintiff sued defendant for eliminating certain health-care benefits that plaintiffs argued they were owed under 1985 plant-closing agreement with defendant’s predecessor in interest, and where plaintiffs argued that said reductions/eliminations of benefits violated ERISA. Under ERISA, plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees under certain circumstances, and Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that plaintiff established their entitlement to fees where: (1) plaintiffs achieved some degree of success where effect of settlement was restoration of medical benefits at 2007 level; (2) defendant had financial ability to pay said fees; (3) fee award provided deterrence to others who wish to improperly cut off medical benefits to those who need them; and (4) plaintiffs were clearly entitled to such benefits. Fact that Dist. Ct. had initially awarded defendant summary judgment in case that was overturned on appeal did not require finding that defendant was “substantially justified” in eliminating said benefits for purposes of defeating plaintiffs’ request for fees.

Boley v. Colvin

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Boley v. Colvin
Civil Court
Social Security
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-1252
Decision Date: 
August 4, 2014
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Evansville Div.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing claimant’s appeal of ALJ’s denial of her late request for hearing on her application for Social Security disability benefits under circumstances where: (1) claimant waited approximately 9 months to file said request; (2) agency timely served claimant with notice of denial of claim, but had failed to serve claimant’s attorney with said notice; and (3) ALJ found that claimant lacked good cause for making late request for hearing since claimant could have made timely request herself. While Dist. Ct. believed that ALJ’s denial was unreviewable under 42 USC section 405(g) because said decision occurred without having had oral hearing on matter, Ct. of Appeals, in overruling Watters, 656 F.2d 234, found that “hearing” for purposes of section 405(g) means whatever process agency deems adequate to produce final decision. As such, no oral hearing was required for instant denial to be reviewed, and thus matter was remanded so that Dist. Ct. could determine whether claimant established good cause to support late request for hearing.

Hanson v. Colvin

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Hanson v. Colvin
Civil Court
Social Security
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3473
Decision Date: 
July 30, 2014
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for social security disability benefits due to acute lower back pain. Both physicians, who rendered opinions about claimant’s condition, agreed that claimant had radiculopathy, and record did not support ALJ’s belief that one doctor, who found that claimant could perform certain work, thought that claimant was malingering. Also, same doctor, who believed that claimant could perform his prior work if given appropriate breaks, did not state how many hours claimant could work. As such, remand was necessary for more evidence as to claimant’s ability to engage in full-time work.