Bremer v. City of Rockford
2016 IL 119889
| Ill. | 2017Background
- William Bremer, a Rockford firefighter, was awarded an occupational disease disability pension under 40 ILCS 5/4-110.1 for cardiomyopathy effective January 2005.
- The City stopped paying his employer-sponsored health insurance premiums in March 2008; Bremer applied for premium-free coverage under section 10 of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act (Benefits Act), which requires a "catastrophic injury."
- The City denied benefits on the ground that an occupational disease pension does not establish a "catastrophic injury" under section 10(a).
- Bremer sued for declaratory relief (count I), attorneys’ fees under the Wage Actions Act (count II), and later sought reimbursement for premiums/out-of-pocket medical expenses (count III).
- Trial court granted Bremer summary judgment on count I; appellate court reversed as to summary judgment on count I (remanded on a factual element) but affirmed denial of fees and vacated the count III judgment. The Supreme Court consolidated appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an award of an occupational disease disability pension under §4-110.1 satisfies the Benefits Act §10(a) "catastrophic injury" requirement | Bremer: §4-110.1 pension arises from service and thus constitutes a line-of-duty "catastrophic injury." | City: "Catastrophic injury" is a term of art tied to line-of-duty disability pensions under §4-110; §4-110.1 has different eligibility standards and does not qualify. | Held for defendant: "Catastrophic injury" means an injury resulting in a §4-110 line-of-duty disability pension; an occupational disease pension under §4-110.1 does not automatically satisfy §10(a). |
| Whether Bremer may recover attorneys’ fees under the Wage Actions Act for denied Benefits Act coverage | Bremer: Eligible to recover fees if he prevails on §10 benefits claim. | City: Postemployment Benefits Act coverage are not "wages earned and due and owing" under Wage Actions Act. | Held for defendant: Fees unavailable; count II properly dismissed because Bremer did not establish entitlement to Benefits Act coverage. |
| Ripeness and merits of Bremer’s claims for reimbursement of premiums and medical expenses (count III) | Bremer: Entitled to reimbursement because City failed to pay premiums and left him uninsured. | City: Reimbursement depends on entitlement to §10 benefits; claims not ripe if §10 relief fails. | Held for defendant: Count III vacated by appellate court and Supreme Court entered judgment for defendant because entitlement to §10 benefits was not established. |
| Whether case should be remanded for factual development on whether Bremer independently qualifies as "catastrophically injured" under §10(a) despite §4-110.1 pension | Bremer: Trial court found facts that could support a §4-110 line-of-duty disability; should be allowed to prove entitlement. | City: Parties litigated by cross-motions for summary judgment and it is undisputed Bremer has only a §4-110.1 award, so judgment as a matter of law is appropriate. | Supreme Court majority: No remand; resolved as a legal question—award of §4-110.1 pension alone insufficient; entered judgment for City. (Justice Kilbride dissented re: remand.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Krohe v. City of Bloomington, 204 Ill. 2d 392 (2003) (construed "catastrophic injury" in §10(a) as synonymous with award of a line-of-duty disability pension under §4-110)
- Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills, 2011 IL 111838 (reaffirmed that "catastrophic injury" = award of line-of-duty disability pension)
- Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2015 IL 118170 (stated the court had expressly equated catastrophic-injury determination with award of a line-of-duty disability pension)
- Rokosik v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 374 Ill. App. 3d 158 (2007) (appellate decision distinguishing line-of-duty disability provisions from occupational disease provisions based on differing eligibility requirements)