Bremer v. The 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 based on cardiomyopathy attributed to firefighting; pension effective January 2005.
- The City paid Bremer’s health insurance premiums until Feb 2008, then stopped and denied his Benefits Act (820 ILCS 320/10) claim for employer-paid, premium-free post-employment health coverage, concluding he had not suffered a “catastrophic injury.”
- Bremer sued for declaratory relief (seeking a ruling that an occupational disease pension qualifies as a “catastrophic injury” under section 10(a)), attorney’s fees under the Wage Actions Act, and reimbursement for medical expenses/premiums.
- The trial court granted Bremer summary judgment on the Benefits Act claim; the appellate court reversed on the ground that a factual dispute remained on the section 10(b) emergency-element; other claims were resolved against Bremer or vacated.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and held that the term “catastrophic injury” in section 10(a) is a term of art equated with an award of a line-of-duty disability pension under section 4-110, and does not include occupational disease disability pensions under section 4-110.1; judgment entered for the City on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Bremer's Argument | Rockford's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an occupational disease disability pension (4-110.1) establishes a “catastrophic injury” under Benefits Act §10(a) | An occupational disease pension arises from service and thus qualifies as a catastrophic, line-of-duty injury | “Catastrophic injury” means only an injury resulting in a line-of-duty disability pension under §4-110; 4-110.1 has different eligibility rules and is distinct | Held for Rockford: “catastrophic injury” is limited to injuries resulting in a §4-110 line-of-duty disability pension and does not include §4-110.1 occupational disease pensions |
| Whether Bremer can recover attorney fees under the Wage Actions Act contingent on Benefits Act success | Bremer asserted fees are recoverable if he prevails on Benefits Act claim | City argued wages statute does not apply because Benefits Act coverage is not "wages earned and due and owing" | Held for Rockford: contingent claim fails because Bremer did not establish right to Benefits Act relief |
| Whether trial court’s award for premiums/medical expenses (count III) should stand | Bremer sought reimbursement for premiums and uninsured medical expenses caused by City’s nonpayment | City argued those claims depend on Bremer’s entitlement to Benefits Act coverage; not ripe if Benefits Act claim fails | Held for Rockford: count III vacated by appellate court and judgment entered for City because Benefits Act claim fails |
| Appropriate disposition when parties cross-move for summary judgment | Bremer argued entitlement as a matter of law based on pension award | City argued legal interpretation defeats Bremer’s claim; facts undisputed that Bremer has only a §4-110.1 pension | Held: Legal question resolved in City’s favor; summary judgment appropriate for City on all counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Krohe v. City of Bloomington, 204 Ill.2d 392 (court defined “catastrophic injury” as synonymous with award of a line-of-duty disability pension)
- Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills, 2011 IL 111838 (reiterated that “catastrophic injury” is a term of art meaning an injury resulting in a line-of-duty disability pension)
- Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2015 IL 118170 (confirmed that a pension board’s award of a line-of-duty disability pension establishes a catastrophic injury as a matter of law)