Employee Benefits

Plaintiff, a full-time probationary police officer, when responding to a report of a home invasion and carrying evidence-technician equipment, slipped on snow and ice at the rear of his squad car, and injured his shoulder when he braced himself from falling. Plaintiff was entitled to payment of health insurance benefits by Village per plain language of section 10 of Public Safety Employee Benefits Act, because he suffered a "catastrophic injury" which occurred "during the investigation of a criminal act." Plaintiff's investigative duties at time of injury had element of immediacy, as he had to act quickly to search for footprints in the snow and needed to dust for fingerprints that could otherwise be lost. The Act does not required that an employee be performing investigatory acts at time of injury, but only that injury occur during investigation of a criminal act. (BRIDGES and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Cook County employee pensions are governed by article 9 of the Pension Code, and pensioners are entitled to automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). Section 9-134 of the Pension Code specifies that the start date of the annuity is the critical point for calculating the annuity and any age reduction. Plaintiff retired 4 days before her 60th birthday. Plaintiff chose the "minimum annuity" formula for calculation of her annuity benefit, under section 9-134, which is pegged to the age of the employee on the date the annuity is to begin. For section 9-134 annuities, the date the employee chooses to start drawing her annuity is the operative date for being "on annuity" under section 9-133(a). Plaintiff was 60 when she her annuity "began", and thus no age reduction was warranted. Her first COLA was due just under 2 years later, according to the first paragraph of section 9-133(a) of the Pension Code.(HOWSE and McBRIDE, concurring.)

Holiday pay under the Village Police Pension Fund's collective bargaining agreement is not pensionable salary because it is not fixed. Under the Pension Code and administrative rules, if police officer compensation is not "fixed", it is not "salary" for pension purposes.  (BRIDGES and ZENOFF, concurring.)

Plaintiff was a full-time police officer who was disabled as a result of being severely injured in the line of duty. Plaintiffs became eligilbe for Medicare based on disability. Court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. Court properly concluded that Village was not obligated, under section 10(a) of Public Safety Employee Benefits Act, to pay insurance premiums for Plaintiffs after they became eligible for Medicare coverage. Court properly concluded that Plaintiffs could not seek recovery for the unpaid premiums under Wage Payment and Collection Act. (LAVIN and COBBS, concurring.)

Officer submitted a disability pension application for line-of-duty pension benefits, claiming injury to his left shoulder suffered when his squad car was struck on the driver's side while he was on duty and assisting with scene of traffic accident. Officer had to be extricated from squad car. Considering all evidence in record, and the fact that Pension Fund Board erred in relying on certain evidence in support of its decision that officer was not disabled, Boards decision was against manifest weight of evidence. Doctors did not testify, and thus factors such as demeanor of testifying witnesses did not figure into assessment of credibility.Although Board did not make a finding on ultimate issue of whether officer was injured in the performance of an act of duty, it did make the necessary factual findings so that appellate court makes that finding as a matter of law.  (McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Plaintiff applied for line-of-duty disability pension, for injuries sustained when he slipped off the curb  in courthouse parking lot while walking from courthouse to his vehicle with papers in hand following his subpoenaed testimony.. Board of Trustees of Village Police Pension Fund denied his request, but granted him a not-on-duty disability pension, which he had requested in the alternative. Circuit court reversed Board's decision. Plaintiff was not exposed to special risks not ordinarily assumed by a citizen in the ordinary walks of life, and was not performing an act of duty when he was injured.Board's decision to deny line-of-duty disability pension was not clearly erroneous. (O'BRIEN and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Plaintiff applied to purchase omitted service credit from Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) for period from 1986 to 2002, when he was executive director of a not-for-profit community center that worked under contract with Township. The IMRF made an interlocutory administrative determination not subject to the 35-day limitations period when it approved Plaintiff's omitted service credit application. Township's agent erroneously certified to IMRF that Plaintiff was a Township employee and eligible to participate. IMRF staff automatically accepted Township's certification and approved PLaintiff's application without hearing or testimony, and it was not a final administrative decision. Plaintiff had, as center's executive director, already decided that IMRF participation was cost prohibitive and declined it, yet proceed to seek IMRF pension benefits for himself after he became employed by Township. (PIERCE and WALKER, concurring.)