Employee Benefits

Plaintiff, a pensioned former employee of the defendant, appealed from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a declaratory judgment and breach of contract action arising out of plaintiff’s former employment as a firefighter. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred when it found that defendant did not have to provide family health insurance for his spouse and erred when it denied his claim for damages under the Wage Payment and Collection Act. The appellate court affirmed, finding that plaintiff was not entitled to have defendant pay health insurance premiums for his family because he was not married at the time his pension benefits vested. (C.A. WALKER and TAILOR, concurring)

Plaintiff, a former firefighter, was awarded a line-of-duty disability pension after the Bensenville Pension Fund determined that his employment was a cause or contributing cause of his debilitating cancer. However, the Board denied his application for health insurance premium benefits under section 10 of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act and plaintiff appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court found in plaintiff’s favor and the Board appealed. On appeal, the Board argued that the plaintiff did not meet the statutory requirements of suffering a catastrophic injury that resulted in his response to what was reasonably believed to be an emergency. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the trial court, finding that the defendant was required to pay for plaintiff’s health insurance premiums. (PUCINSKI and COGHLAN, concurring)

Plaintiff, City of East Peoria, appealed from a trial court order affirming a decision of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund of the City of East Peoria in which the Board granted a former police officer a pension based on the officer’s salary over the last three months of his employment. The City argued that under section 3-111(a) of the Illinois Pension Code the pension should instead be based on an average of the actual wages the officer received over the last year. The appellate court agreed and reversed the circuit court’s judgment, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded with instructions. (STEIGMANN and KNECHT, concurring)

Plaintiff, the widow of a Chicago police officer, appealed from the Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago’s decision denying her claim for a widow’s supplemental annuity benefit. The Board found her ineligible to receive the benefit because her husband had retired prior to his death. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the decedent’s retirement was an “unavoidable and intervening reason” that plaintiff did not qualify for a widow’s supplemental annuity, even if the decedent was permanently disabled due to an on-duty injury at the time of his death. (HOWSE and ELLIS, concurring)

Plaintiff, City of East Peoria, filed a lawsuit contesting an occupational disability pension awarded to its employee by the co-defendant Board of Trustees of the Firefighters’ Pension Fund of the City of East Peoria. The trial court affirmed the decision of the Board of Trustees and plaintiff appealed, arguing numerous errors, including that the physician appointed to examine the former employee was statutorily required to conduct an in-person physical examination. The appellate court affirmed, finding that an in-person physical examination was not required by the statute and that the board properly considered the competing evidence of the employee’s disability in reaching its conclusion. (HARRIS and STEIGMANN, concurring)

Defendants appealed from a circuit court order reversing their order denying surviving spouse firefighter pension benefits to the plaintiff. The appellate court vacated the circuit court order and affirmed the decision of the pension board, concluding that the petitioner had no vested right in pension benefits because she was not the spouse of the decedent at the time of his death and could only become a surviving spouse if the dissolution of marriage order was set aside. (CATES and MOORE, concurring)