Sottos v. Board of Trustees of the Firefighters' Pension Fund of the City of Moline
92 N.E.3d 925
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jerry Sottos, a Moline firefighter, suffered back injuries and had two lumbar fusions; his neurosurgeon recommended he not return to firefighting and he applied for a line-of-duty disability pension.
- At an initial July 2014 Board hearing, the Firefighters’ Pension Board granted a line-of-duty pension based on a salary attached to rank of $75,674.93, producing a monthly benefit of $4,099.06 (65%).
- The Board sua sponte reopened the matter and in September 2014 issued an amended decision reducing the monthly benefit to $3,999.09, finding Sottos’ last payroll date was March 8, 2013 and using a $73,829.32 salary; the amended order did not state the Board’s reasoning.
- Sottos sought administrative review in the trial court; the trial court reversed the Board’s amended decision and reinstated the Board’s original award based on the later (2014) payroll date.
- On appeal the Board argued deference to its factual findings and cited administrative regulations excluding certain non-payroll payments from salary calculations; Sottos argued the Pension Code’s plain language requires using the last date he was removed from the municipality’s payroll (2014) and that the Board’s amended order was deficient.
- The appellate court reviewed the issue de novo, construed the payroll-clause in section 4-110 liberally in favor of the applicant, found Sottos remained on the City payroll while receiving TTD workers’ compensation and receiving a 2014 lump-sum payout, and reinstated the Board’s initial decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What date controls “salary attached to the rank … at the date he or she is removed from the municipality’s fire department payroll”? | Use the later date (March 2014) because Sottos remained on the payroll while receiving TTD workers’ compensation and received a 2014 lump-sum payout. | Use the earlier date (March 8, 2013); TTD and lump-sum payouts are not part of payroll for section 4-110 purposes and Administrative Code guidance supports the Board’s view. | Held for plaintiff: the court reads the payroll clause to cover the 2014 date; Sottos was still on the payroll while receiving TTD and the 2014 payout supports using the later salary. |
| Whether Board’s amended order must state determinative reasoning under Open Meetings Act | The amended order is void/defective for failing to state determinative reasons. | Forfeited because no timely objection and not pled separately; not addressed on merits. | Court did not decide on Open Meetings Act; resolved case on statutory interpretation instead. |
| Proper standard of review for interpreting section 4-110 | De novo: statute interpretation with no genuine factual dispute. | Mixed question of law and fact; defer to Board (clearly erroneous standard). | De novo review applied; statutory interpretation governs. |
| Weight of IDOI advisory opinion interpreting payroll status during TTD | The IDOI opinion supports treating TTD payments by employer as remaining on payroll. | IDOI opinion not binding. | Court gives the IDOI advisory opinion substantial weight and finds it consistent with statutory reading. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board, 225 Ill. 2d 497 (agency decision reviewed, standards of review and deference)
- Elementary School District 159 v. Schiller, 221 Ill. 2d 130 (mixed question/deference discussion)
- Ryan v. Board of Trustees of the General Assembly Retirement System, 236 Ill. 2d 315 (scope of de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- Roselle Police Pension Board v. Village of Roselle, 232 Ill. 2d 546 (pension statutes construed liberally for applicant; weight of IDOI opinion)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (statutory construction principles)
- Virden v. Board of Trustees of the Firefighters Pension Fund, 304 Ill. App. 3d 330 (pension statute construction in favor of applicant)