Robelet v. Police Pension Fund of the City of Crystal Lake
90 N.E.3d 1021
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Victor Robelet, a former Crystal Lake police officer, applied for a line-of-duty disability pension; the City intervened in the pension proceeding.
- Robelet initially was represented by Garza; he later retained McGuire for the pension hearing though McGuire knew the hearing was set for August 15 and 17, 2016.
- McGuire requested a continuance based on medical issues; Board denied a continuance to September but offered to proceed on August 17.
- McGuire instructed Robelet not to attend the August 15 hearing, appeared alone, argued for a continuance, then notified the Board on the evening of August 16 that he had conflicting doctor appointments on August 17.
- Neither McGuire nor Robelet appeared at the August 17 hearing; the City moved to dismiss for want of prosecution and the Board granted the dismissal.
- Robelet sought administrative review; the trial court affirmed the Board, and Robelet appealed to the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board abused discretion in denying continuance for McGuire’s medical issues | McGuire’s illness was a valid, first-time reason for continuance; denial unfairly deprived Robelet of hearing | McGuire accepted representation knowing dates, was not diligent, and was able to argue at hearing; delay was self-inflicted | Denial was within Board’s discretion (no abuse) |
| Whether Board abused discretion in denying motion to reconsider (late notice of doctor appointments) | McGuire’s later-discovered scheduling conflict and new documents justified reconsideration | Conflict was not shown to be emergency; notice was late and appointments could be rescheduled; documents were duplicative | Denial was within Board’s discretion |
| Whether dismissal for want of prosecution was proper | Dismissal unjustly deprived Robelet of pension rights after long service | Robelet and counsel failed to appear despite notice and opportunity; abandonment justified dismissal | Dismissal was proper; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether plaintiff was denied due process / fair hearing | Denial of continuance, reconsideration, and dismissal denied meaningful opportunity to be heard | Robelet had notice and opportunity; he and counsel voluntarily failed to participate | No due process violation; opportunity existed but was forfeited by plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue, 236 Ill. 2d 368 (setting principle that reviewing court reviews administrative agency decision)
- Wilson v. Department of Professional Regulation, 344 Ill. App. 3d 897 (agency has broad discretion to grant continuances)
- Polk v. Board of Trustees of the Park Ridge Police Pension Fund Board of Trustees, 253 Ill. App. 3d 525 (ex parte investigations by board members impermissible)
- Turcol v. Pension Board of Trustees of Matteson Police Pension Fund, 359 Ill. App. 3d 795 (presumption of impartiality of administrative board members)
- In re Hannah E., 376 Ill. App. 3d 648 (lack of due diligence weighs against granting continuance)
- Dempsey v. Sternik, 147 Ill. App. 3d 571 (attorney’s total unpreparedness is not good cause for continuance)
- Ullmen v. Department of Registration & Education, 67 Ill. App. 3d 519 (continuance warranted where sudden serious illness prevented attendance)
- Martinez v. Scandroli, 130 Ill. App. 3d 712 (substitution of counsel does not guarantee open-ended time to prepare)