Lindemulder v. Board of Trustees of Naperville Firefighters' Pension Fund
408 Ill. App. 3d 494
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Lindemulder, a Naperville firefighter/paramedic since 1988, was placed on medical leave in 2006 for COPD.
- In 2007, he was certed permanently disabled due to COPD attributed to smoking; he sought line-of-duty or occupational disease disability benefits under the Illinois Pension Code.
- City intervened; the Board held five days of hearings with extensive exhibits.
- Evidence showed COPD was caused by tobacco use; Lindemulder claimed diesel exhaust and fire smoke from duty exacerbated his condition.
- Station No. 3 allegedly had diesel exhaust exposure and poor air quality, but defenses argued modern gear reduces such exposure and records showed no definitive causation.
- Three physicians retained by the Board found Lindemulder disabled due to smoking, and either did not link disability to duty or found any occupational exposure contributed only de minimis or no permanent effect; Board denied line-of-duty and occupational disease benefits but granted non-duty pension; circuit court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cumulative acts of duty can support a line-of-duty pension. | Lindemulder argues cumulative duty exposures caused/exacerbated COPD. | Board and City contend COPD was caused by smoking, not duty exposures. | Denied; no manifest weight finding that duty exposures caused exacerbation. |
| Whether the legislature’s 4-110.1 findings supply a causation basis for an occupational disease pension. | Legislative findings, plus evidence, justify occupational-disease pension. | Findings do not override the need for causation from service; medical evidence supports smoking as sole cause. | Denied; findings alone do not establish causation; medical evidence supported non-occupational cause. |
| What is the proper standard of review for Board’s decision on disability benefits? | Appellant contends de novo or clearly erroneous review applies. | Review is manifest-weight-of-the-evidence for factual findings; law de novo for legal questions. | Affirmed; Board's factual determinations are reviewed for manifest weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 207 Ill.2d 193 (2003) (discusses causation in work-related injuries (not controlling here))
- Scalise v. Board of Trustees of the Westchester Firemen's Pension Fund, 264 Ill.App.3d 1029 (1993) (exposure can exacerbate a condition; permits pension where employment exacerbates illness)
- Jones v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 384 Ill.App.3d 1064 (2008) (standard of review for Board decisions; blends factual/legal questions)
- Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias, 231 Ill.2d 62 (2008) (deference to legislature's fact-finding in certain pension contexts)
- Velocity Investments, LLC v. Alston, 397 Ill.App.3d 296 (2010) (forfeiture/argument-focused appellate principled approach to records)