Mingus v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund of Peoria
2011 IL App (3d) 110098
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Mingus, a Peoria police officer, was on duty in full uniform and patrol car when he encountered a vehicle off the road in icy conditions on December 8, 2006.
- The vehicle had slid into a ditch with the front end on the paved roadway; the area was icy and a safety hazard existed.
- Two civilians stopped to help; Mingus and the civilians attempted to push the vehicle back onto the road,
- Mingus did not call for a tow truck or otherwise secure the scene or direct traffic, and he allowed the civilians to assist despite the hazard.
- Mingus suffered a groin injury (hernia) during the pushing effort and later could not return to police duties; the Board denied a line-of-duty disability pension and awarded a nonduty pension.
- On administrative review, the trial court upheld the Board; Mingus appeals seeking a line-of-duty pension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mingus’s injury occurred during performance of an act of duty | Mingus was on-duty and responding to a citizen call, performing duty. | The injury did not arise from a duty act; alternative actions were available. | Yes; injury occurred during the performance of an act of duty. |
| Standard of review for the agency decision | The findings should be reviewed de novo for duty status. | Review is limited to whether the decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Fact-specific review; manifest weight standard applies to this issue. |
| Whether Board credibility finding about safety was dispositive | Board erred by relying on credibility on immaterial aspects. | Credibility findings valid and relevant to duty determination. | Board credibility error not outcome-determinative; does not negate duty finding. |
| Proper interpretation of 'act of duty' under 40 ILCS 5/5-113 and 5-154 | Responding to a citizen’s call is an act of duty. | Act of duty requires inherently dangerous action or special risk. | Responding to a citizen call can qualify as an act of duty; not limited to extreme acts. |
| Remedy on appeal" | Board's ruling should be reversed and Mingus awarded line-of-duty pension. | Remand not warranted; Board’s denial should be affirmed. | Remand with directions to award Mingus a line-of-duty disability pension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 114 Ill. 2d 518 (Ill. 1986) (limits on what constitutes duty-related duty disability; capacity of officer matters)
- Merlo v. Orland Hills Police Pension Board, 383 Ill. App. 3d 97 (Ill. App. 2008) (act of duty includes responses to citizen calls and related injuries)
- Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board, 225 Ill. 2d 497 (Ill. 2006) (standard of review for administrative decisions; manifest weight)
- Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485 (Ill. 2007) (line-of-duty disability determination involves factual question)
- Angelini v. Snow, 58 Ill. App. 3d 116 (Ill. App. 1978) (administrative review framework and standard of review)
- Sarkis v. City of Des Plaines, 378 Ill. App. 3d 833 (Ill. App. 2008) (duty disability when responding to calls; facts surrounding actions)