Employee Benefits

Defendant Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago appealed from a circuit court order reversing the Board’s decision to deny the application of plaintiff for retirement annuity pension benefits under section 5-227 of the Illinois Pension Code. On appeal, defendant argued that its decision should be upheld based on its finding that plaintiff’s felony conviction for aggravated battery was related to, or arose out of, or was in connection with his service as a Chicago police officer. The appellate court agreed and reversed the judgment of the circuit court. (HYMAN and WALKER, concurring)

Plaintiff pursued an administrative review case concerning the denial of her application to purchase retiree health insurance through the Cook County fund. While the case was on appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court having dismissed the Board’s appeal, but before the mandate was issued by the appellate court, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class of fund annuitants. The circuit court granted the Board’s motion to strike and to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. Plaintiff argued on appeal that the circuit court erred because it was revested with jurisdiction by the mandate of the supreme court and retained jurisdiction until final disposition. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s order of dismissal, finding that the appellate court had remanded the case to the Board to enter an order consistent with its order and, while the mandate was filed in the circuit court, the appellate court did not remand the case to that court so that the circuit court no longer retained jurisdiction. (PIERCE and MIKVA, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action seeking mandamus relief against Cook County after the county terminated his employment and disability benefits seeking reinstatement of contributions to the Benefit Fund and his disability benefits. The circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and the appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, finding that “in most circumstances” a permanently disabled employee may enjoy an uninterrupted flow of benefits from the time their application for ordinary disability benefits is granted until conversion to a disability pension or the employee’s death and that the county improperly ceased his benefits when it terminated his employment. (ANNE M. BURKE, GARMAN, THEIS, NEVILLE, MICHAEL J. BURKE and CARTER, concurring)

The Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Employment Security appealed from a trial court order reversing the board’s decision denying unemployment benefits to the plaintiff. The board found plaintiff was not able or available for work because he was seeking only part-time employment and failed to prove this limitation was the result of circumstances beyond his control. The appellate court agreed with the Board, finding that plaintiff was not available for work because he wanted to maintain weekly earnings below the threshold to qualify for Social Security disability benefits. The appellate court reversed the trial court and affirmed the decision of the Board of Review. (SCHMIDT and HAUPTMAN, concurring)

Pension Fund Board issued decision finding that Defendant was entitled to receive a line-of-duty disability pension from a back injury sustained while moving bottled water for a fire department event. Given clear objective evidence of a disabling injury and its cause, and unanimous opinions by the IMEs, Board did not err in declining to consider Defendant's preemployment misstatements. Defendant was performing an act of duty, as that term is defined by statute, when his disabling injury occurred. An "act of duty" includes any act imposed on an active firefighter by city ordinance or by department rules or regulations, or an act performed while on duty for direct purpose of saving of life or property of another. Only one of these must be shown to meet the "act of duty" definition. Rules of fire department required Defendant to follow the chain of command, and he was on duty and carrying out the orders of his shift commander when he was injured. (ZENOFF and HUDSON, concurring.)

Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) Board of Review denied Plaintiff unemployment benefits, for which he had applied after Village terminated his employment as a firefighter for violating Village's residency requirement. Plaintiff's violation of residency ordinance was insubordinate and potentially harmful to Village's interests. Board's finding that Plaintiff intentionally violated the ordinance and that he harmed the Village are supported by evidence and are not against manifest weight of evidence. Evidence in record supports Board's determination that Plaintiff was discharged for misconduct within meaning of section 602(A) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. (ROCHFORD and MARTIN, concurring.)

Plaintiffs, former fire department employees who suffered career-ending injuries, sued City, alleging they are guaranteed, under Public Safety Employee Benefits Act, lifetime premium-free coverage under City's group health insurance plan for active-duty employees. The Act is not an insurance plan, and section 10(a)(1) of the Act only relieves public employers of the Act's obligation to pay insurance premiums when beneficiaries have insurance from any other source. The Act guarantees injured firefights basic insurance coverage, and when Medicare provides that coverage, the Act does not require the City to supplement it. As none of the Plaintiffs' spouses or children are Plaintiffs in this case, court will not consider how the Act applies to them. (REYES and ROCHFORD, concurring.)