Richter v. Village of Oak Brook
2011 IL App (2d) 100114
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Richter, a firefighter for Oak Brook, sustained diesel exposure–related rhinitis and multiple shoulder injuries beginning in 1999, leading to disability and workers’ compensation claims.
- Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claims were settled in February 2004, and the pension board awarded a line-of-duty disability pension based on shoulder injuries, creating a basis for further benefits analysis.
- Richter sought health insurance premiums under PSEBA and disability benefits under PEDA, with the trial court initially ruling for Oak Brook on those claims.
- Parties subsequently argued that collateral estoppel/res judicata should apply, relying on the Commission’s settlement order (Feb. 9, 2004) and the December 2003 arbitration/commission orders.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; Oak Brook stopped paying PSEBA premiums in 2008, prompting further litigation culminating in appellate reversal on counts I (PSEBA) and III (PEDA).
- Appellate decision held that the Commission’s settlement order was a final adjudication on the merits and, via collateral estoppel, precluded relitigation of whether the January 4, 2000 shoulder injury contributed to Richter’s disability, while also granting PEDA benefits for periods specified in the December 2003 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of collateral estoppel to PSEBA claim | Richter seeks judgment as a matter of law based on collateral estoppel. | Settlement order does not bind relitigation or prove PSEBA entitlement. | Collateral estoppel applies; Richter entitled to PSEBA benefits. |
| Application of collateral estoppel to PEDA claim from December 2003/February 2004 orders | Earlier orders establish entitlement to PEDA benefits for listed periods. | Later settlement order overrides prior rulings or lacks explicit PEDA findings. | Collateral estoppel applies; Richter entitled to PEDA benefits for periods listed in December 2003 order. |
| Finality of settlement order for collateral estoppel purposes | Settlement order constitutes a final adjudication on the issues settled. | Settlement order is not a merits-based judgment and cannot estop. | Settlement order is a final adjudication on the merits and supports estoppel. |
| Attorney fees for pursuing counts I and III | Fees should be reinstated if counts I and III are successful. | Not expressly argued; issue subsumed by reversal of counts I and III. | Remanded for proceedings on counts II and IV; fees to be addressed consistent with results on counts I and III. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krohe v. City of Bloomington, 204 Ill. 2d 392 (Ill. 2003) (catastrophic injury equals line-of-duty disability for PSEBA purposes)
- Bahr v. Bartlett Fire Protection District, 383 Ill. App. 3d 68 (Ill. App. 2008) (emergency-related injuries can contribute to later disability under PSEBA)
- Phalin v. McHenry County Sheriff’s Department, 381 Ill. App. 3d 185 (Ill. App. 2008) (PSEBA requires catastrophic injury from emergency response; multiple injuries allowed if contributing)
- Stromberg Motor Device Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 305 Ill. 619 (Ill. 1922) (settlement/award by Commission is final adjudication for preclusion purposes)
- J&R Carrozza Plumbing Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 307 Ill. App. 3d 220 (Ill. App. 1999) (settlement incorporated into final order has res judicata effect)
- Thurow v. Police Pension Board, 180 Ill. App. 3d 683 (Ill. App. 1989) (workers’ compensation judgment precludes relitigation of injury/disability issue)
- Mabie v. Village of Schaumburg, 364 Ill. App. 3d 756 (Ill. App. 2006) (non-mutual collateral estoppel when same parties involved permitted)
- In re Owens, 125 Ill. 2d 390 (Ill. 1987) (res judicata and collateral estoppel principles govern subsequent actions)
- Talarico v. Dunlap, 177 Ill. 2d 185 (Ill. 1997) (offensive collateral estoppel concerns balanced against fairness and litigation incentives)
- Grawe, Department of Transportation v. Grawe, 113 Ill. App. 3d 336 (Ill. App. 1983) (settlement order may supersede prior decisions depending on context)
- Kinn v. Prairie Farms/Muller Pinehurst, 368 Ill. App. 3d 728 (Ill. App. 2006) (settlement incorporated into final Commission order retains estoppel effect)
- Stromberg Motor Device Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 305 Ill. 619 (Ill. 1922) (settlement/awards have preclusive effect when final)