Employee Benefits

Police detective was diagnosed with PTSD from his service as a Marine, but functioned as a police officer at a high level until he investigated a grisly Metra train accident. Three examining physicians opined that he became unable to perform his duties because of the train accident,  which rendered him unfit to perform his duties. Police Pension Fund Board did not err in awarding line-of-duty disability pension to detective. Pension Code does not require an act of duty to be the sole cause of an officer's disability, and the Board may award a police officer a line-of-duty disability pension even if the officer had a preexisting mental condition. (GRIFFIN and WALKER, concurring.)

In pension litigation, Plaintiffs claim that each of the defendant Funds has an obligation, per the 1983 and 1985 amendments to Illinois Pension Code and Illinois Constitution's pension protection clause, to select and establish a healthcare plan for its annuitants. Plaintiffs' motion to compel each of the Funds to provide its annuitants with a healthcare plan was not barred by he First District Appellate Court's 2017 decision in Underwood II (Underwood v. City of Chicago), as this issue was not decided in that opinion. The eligibility cutoff for City employees entitled to receive the fixed-rate subsidies is 6/30/03, the last day before the terms of the court-approved 2003 settlement were incorporated by legislative amendment into the Pension Code and thereby became an enforceable provision of the Code. Those portions of the circuit court's 2018 and 2019 orders to the contrary are vacated. (CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring.)

Section 7-137.2(a) of the Illinois Pension Code, altering the certification process and eligibility requirements for elected county board members' participation in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF), violates the pension protection clause of article XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution. (A. BURKE, GARMAN, KARMEIER, THEIS, NEVILLE, and M. BURKE, concurring.)

(Per Curiam opinion.) One Justice has recused himself, and the remaining justices are divided so that it is not possible to secure the constitutionally required concurrence of four judges for a decision. Thus, appeal is dismissed. Effect of dismissal is the same as an affirmance by an equally divided court of the decision under review but is of no precedential value. 

Plaintiff retirement plan, a pension fund, manages benefits for CTA retirees and their dependents. Plaintiff and CTA agreed that fund would pay CTA for the "actual cost" of retirees' prescriptions. Plaintiff contends CTA breached that agreement by retaining rebates the CTA received from its prescription drug provider (Caremark). Court properly granted summary judgment on its contract claims based on statute of limitations and its finding that the parties did not have a fiduciary relationship was not against manifest weight of evidence. Under discovery rule, statute of limitations began to run when Plaintiff learned it had not been credited for the rebates. Claims which accrued more than 5 years before Plaintiff filed its complaint are barred. Plaintiff failed to show that the CTA was acting as its agent in negotiating with Caremark or had sufficient dominance over it to create a fiduciary relationship.(GRIFFIN and WALKER, concurring.)