Underwood v. City of Chicago, 171 N.E.3d 901

1983 and 1985 Pension Code amendments provided fixed monthly healthcare subsidies paid via a City tax levy and contemplated that each municipal pension Fund would contract for group health insurance and apply the subsidy toward premiums.
The Korshak litigation produced interim settlements (1989, 1997) and a final 2003 settlement that changed retiree healthcare arrangements; the 2003 settlement was court‑approved and later incorporated into the Pension Code.
Plaintiffs (multiple subclasses of current/former City employees and retirees) sued alleging diminution of benefits under the Illinois Constitution’s pension protection clause and sought, among other relief, an order compelling each Fund to provide a healthcare plan.
On remand from this court’s 2017 decision (Underwood II), the circuit court struck repleaded claims as barred by law‑of‑the‑case and denied the motion to compel; it also treated April 4, 2003 (last signature) as the 2003 settlement’s “execution date.”
The appellate court treated this interlocutory appeal as a Rule 308 certified‑question appeal, held (1) the law‑of‑the‑case did not bar consideration of whether the Funds must provide a healthcare plan, and (2) fixed‑subsidy eligibility extends to employees hired on or before June 30, 2003 (the day before the statutory amendment incorporating the court‑approved settlement became effective).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1983/1985 amendments and the pension protection clause obligate each Fund to select/establish/administer a group healthcare plan for annuitants (motion to compel).	Funds must “provide” and administer a group healthcare plan (not merely receive/credit a subsidy); pension clause protects that obligation.	Underwood II limited protection to fixed‑rate subsidies only; law‑of‑the‑case bars relitigation of Fund obligations.	Law‑of‑the‑case does not foreclose consideration; appellate court vacated the circuit court’s bar and remanded for merits. (But it reaffirmed that plaintiffs have no entitlement to extra monetary contributions or a guarantee of affordable healthcare beyond the fixed subsidy.)
What is the “execution date” of the 2003 Korshak settlement for determining who is eligible for the 1983/1985 fixed subsidies?	The execution date is when the class settlement received court approval (June 16, 2003) or when it was incorporated into the Pension Code (effective July 1, 2003), so eligibility should extend at least through June 30, 2003.	“Execution” means the last party’s signature (April 4, 2003); that is the cutoff.	"Execution" is the effective date after court approval and statutory incorporation; the appellate court fixed eligibility cutoff as June 30, 2003 (i.e., hired on or before June 30, 2003).

Kanerva v. Weems, 2014 IL 115811 (2014) (Illinois Supreme Court: subsidized healthcare can be a protected benefit under the pension protection clause)
People v. Patterson, 154 Ill. 2d 414 (1992) (law‑of‑the‑case is a practice, not a limit on appellate power)
Relph v. Board of Education of DePue Unit School District No. 103, 84 Ill. 2d 436 (1981) (questions decided on first appeal generally not relitigable)
Schrock v. Shoemaker, 159 Ill. 2d 533 (1994) (exercise of Rule 366 powers in certified‑question context)
Jursich v. Arlington Heights Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 83 Ill. App. 3d 352 (1980) (denial of motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable under Rule 304(a))
Alwin v. Village of Wheeling, 371 Ill. App. 3d 898 (2007) (statement of law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and its scope)