Filskov v. Board of Trustees of the Northlake Police Pension Fund, 946 N.E.2d 1095

Officer Filskov, NET member, sustained a foot injury when a squad car parking-lot incident occurred while preparing to re-enter a vehicle.
He applied for line-of-duty (on-duty) or not-on-duty disability pension benefits from the Pension Board.
The Board denied line-of-duty benefits but granted not-on-duty benefits.
Circuit court reversed, awarding on-duty benefits on administrative review.
The Board appeals, arguing the injury did not occur while performing an act of duty and the Board’s finding was not clearly erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the injury occurred during the performance of an act of duty	Filskov was performing NET duties and entering a vehicle as part of police work	The injury occurred while he was a passenger with no special duty-related risk	Not clearly erroneous; injury did not arise from an act of duty
What standard governs review of mixed questions of law and fact	Defer to agency findings on law and fact under the mixed standard	Apply clearly erroneous standard to the agency’s legal effect of facts	Mixed question review; court upheld agency decision not clearly erroneous

Johnson v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 114 Ill.2d 518 (1986) (crux is the capacity in which officer is acting)
Morgan v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 172 Ill.App.3d 273 (1988) (injury not in act of duty; ordinary risk tests applied)
Fedorski v. Board of Trustees of the Aurora Police Pension Fund, 375 Ill.App.3d 371 (2007) (injury not in act of duty; risk not related to duties)
Alm v. Lincolnshire Police Pension Board, 352 Ill.App.3d 595 (2004) (on bicycle patrol; risks not ordinary; special duty context considered)
Merlo v. Orland Hills Police Pension Board, 383 Ill.App.3d 97 (2008) (responding to a call; risks tied to police duty)