Opinion

Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board

  • 359 Ill. App. 3d 224
  • 295 Ill. Dec. 594
  • 833 N.E.2d 427
  • 2005 Ill. App. LEXIS 793
Court
Appellate Court of Illinois
Filed
Aug 3, 2005
Status
Published
Author
Bowman
On the bench
Byrne, Bowman
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 0.3%

The opinion

JUSTICE BOWMAN, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part. I concur in the majority’s analysis and decision that the Board’s finding that plaintiff had not proven grounds for a line-of-duty disability pension in accordance with section 3 — 114.1 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/3—114.1 (West 2002)) is against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, I disagree with the majority’s finding that section 3 — 115 of the Code (40 ILCS 5/3—115 (West 2002)) requires three practicing physicians, selected by the Board, to certify the police officer’s disability and with its consequential finding affirming the Board’s decision to deny plaintiffs application for disability benefits.

I believe that the majority decision in Coyne v. Milan Police Pension Board ex rel. Jones, 347 Ill. App. 3d 713, 727-30 (2004), analyzing section 5, “Physicians’ Certificates of Disability,” correctly interprets section 3 — 115 of the Code (40 ILCS 5/3—115 (West 2002)). Consequently, I would reverse the Board’s decision to deny plaintiff disability pension benefits because the Board did not receive three physician certificates of disability.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.