2013 IL App (1st) 121345
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Summers, a CPD officer in the Equipment and Supply Section, loaded and delivered police equipment and supplies in a marked police vehicle.
- On May 5, 2010, Summers injured his neck while lifting a box in the truck; MRI later showed degenerative changes and an extruded fracture, leading to cervical fusion.
- The Board denied duty disability benefits but awarded ordinary disability benefits at 50% of salary after an evidentiary hearing in August 2011.
- The circuit court reversed, granting Summers duty disability benefits at 75%, concluding the injury occurred during an act of duty.
- The Board appealed, arguing Summers’ injury did not occur in the performance of an act of duty under 40 ILCS 5/5-113 and related provisions.
- This court applied a de novo review to whether Summers’ injury was incurred in the performance of an act of duty and affirmed the Board’s denial of duty benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Summers’ injury occur in the performance of an act of duty? | Summers acted in a police capacity delivering equipment, a duty involving special risk. | Summers’ work was a routine delivery task with no special risk, not an act of duty. | No; injury not incurred in an act of duty. |
| Should Summers receive duty vs ordinary disability benefits based on the act-of-duty question? | Because he was on duty performing assigned tasks, Summers should receive 75% duty disability. | Absent an act of duty, Summers is limited to 50% ordinary disability. | Ordinary disability benefits; not duty benefits. |
| What standard of review applies to the Board’s act-of-duty determination? | Historically, deference to pension-board findings; issues are fact-intensive. | Interpretation of statute requires de novo review when purely legal. | De novo review; the result would be the same under any appropriate standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 114 Ill. 2d 518 (1986) (act of duty can include responding to citizen calls; capacity matters)
- Sarkis v. City of Des Plaines, 378 Ill. App. 3d 833 (2008) (railroad gate lifting not an act of duty)
- Merlo v. Orland Hills Police Pension Board, 383 Ill. App. 3d 97 (2008) (duty vs non-duty based on nature of officer’s duties and risks)
- Alm v. Lincolnshire Police Pension Board, 352 Ill. App. 3d 595 (2004) (patrol risks can constitute act of duty)
- Rose v. Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Police Pension Fund, 2011 IL App (1st) 102157 (2011) (patrol duties can involve special risks not ordinarily assumed)