A divided state appeals court has ruled Cook County cannot turn down health insurance coverage to retirees who left the county payroll to work elsewhere before retiring, saying the county's rules limiting coverage only to workers who retired while employed by Cook County are illegal.
A dissenting justice disagreed, however, saying the Illinois Pension Code does not confer an "enduring right" to such a benefit.
Justice Sheldon Harris, of the Illinois First District Appellate Court, with concurrence from Justice Joy Cunningham, delivered the decision June 7. Justice Maureen Connors dissented.
Illinois First District Justice Sheldon Harris
| Illinoiscourts.gov
The majority ruling favored Lori G. Levin in her case against the Retirement Board of the County Employees’ and Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Cook County.
Levin was an assistant state's attorney for Cook County from 1980 to 2003, when she took a state job as executive director of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. Levin left that post in 2009, without having worked the required eight years with the state to be eligible for state retiree health insurance coverage. However, Levin had coverage through her husband's employer, but he left the employer and coverage expired in fall 2016. Levin then asked the board to let her buy insurance for herself and her spouse through the county.
The retirement board said she was not eligible, because neither Cook County nor the Cook County Forest Preserve District, were her last employer. Levin then went to Cook County Circuit Court to have a judge overturn the board, but Circuit Judge Kathleen Pantle refused, saying Levin did not enjoy an "unconditional right" to participate in the coverage plan, because the state pension code statute says the county benefits fund "may" subsidize an annuitant's coverage. Pantle further found the "last-employer rule" did not conflict with the pension code or exceed the board's authority.
Levin appealed, with the appellate majority disagreeing with Pantle and reversing the board.
"The statute has only two requirements for participation: an individual must be an 'annuitant' and an individual must 'choose to participate,'" Harris said, partly quoting pension law.
Harris said the board and Pantle wrongly interpreted the word "may" to mean the board can choose who takes part in the plan. Instead, "may" only means the board can determine whether all or a portion of health care premiums are paid by the plan.
Harris added that if the board could impose the "last-employer" requirement, the board could also impose any other rule it decided was necessary to run the fund. Such a situation would conflict with state law that "holds administrative agencies have limited powers."
Harris concluded, "Nothing" in the statute "states that an annuitant must have last worked for Cook County in order to be eligible to participate."
Harris ordered the board to allow Levin to take part in the insurance plan. Harris also declared the "last-employer" rule invalid.
In dissent, Connors said the pension code grants authority to the board that is "general and overarching in its scope and is not limited." In addition, the code "grants the Board the power to enact rules, such as the 'last-employer' rule," Connors said.
Connors continued: "If the legislature intended to limit the Board’s ability to promulgate rules and regulations to only specific benefits or administrative items, it would have done so. The legislature intended to provide the Board with authority to enact whatever rules were necessary to administer the fund."
Quoting from a 2016 First District Appellate Court ruling, Connors said annuitants have no "enduring right" to participate in the county's health care plan.
Levin has been represented by Clinton Krislov, of Krislov & Associates, of Chicago.
The board has been defended by Vincent Pinelli, of Burke, Burns & Pinelli, of Chicago.