CHICAGO -- A state appellate court has reversed a suburban pension board’s decision to deny a firefighter line-of-duty disability for back pain the court determined could have been caused by years of repetitive injuries.
Justices Sheldon A. Harris, Joy V. Cunningham and Maureen E. Connors of the Illinois First District Appellate Court filed their decision on Sept. 6 in the case brought by retired Harvey firefighter Jerry Valadez, who was seeking the larger pension payout offered under a so-called line-of-duty disability benefit.
Firefighters who qualify for a duty disability pension can receive a benefit equal to 75% of their salary, which would increase annually.
The decision was filed as an unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 so it cannot be cited as precedent except in very limited circumstances.
According to the complaint, Valadez retired from the Harvey Fire Department in 2016 at age 54. At the time, Valadez allegedly had been treated for back pain for nine years and said he was suffering daily pain, numbness and needle-like sensations that affected his daily activities. The doctor who declared he could no longer work as a firefighter said Valadez could not lift more than 35 pounds and could not frequently life more than 20 pounds, the suit alleged.
Valadez applied to the board of trustees of the Harvey Firefighters’ pension board for line-of-duty disability benefits, submitting evidence from three doctors who all described his symptoms and all referenced a series of on-duty injuries as incidents that aggravated his condition.
In denying his application for line-of-duty disability, the board relied upon a report submitted by a fourth doctor, Dr. Carl Graf, who disagreed with the other three. Graf noted that Valadez was able “to easily accomplish the entire physical examination” and takes no pain medication. Graf described Valadez’s back pain as a pre-existing condition and said it “bears no relation to his work activities.”
In the appellate decision, Harris noted that to receive a line-of-duty disability benefit, the plaintiff’s disability must be established by three physicians – who need not agree with one another – and a work-related injury must have contributed to the disability. The injury does not need to be the sole or primary cause of the disability, the justices wrote.
“Here, the parties agree that plaintiff has a pre-existing condition, is permanently disabled and can no longer perform his duties as a firefighter,” Harris wrote. “[The] plaintiff contends that his work-related duties … contributed to his disability. The board, however … found that plaintiff’s pre-existing condition was the sole cause of his disability.”
The justices said the report relied upon by the board is “unreliable” because Graf did not consider the heavy physical strain Valadez experienced, as the other physicians did. He also said he didn’t believe the plaintiff was severely disabled because he takes no pain medications, though Valadez’s medical history shows he was once on prescription painkillers and had to stop using them because they were impairing his liver function.
“We find that the board erred in assigning greater weight to Dr. Graf’s opinion where he selectively regarded or failed to consider relevant evidence in the case,” Harris wrote. “No report from any physician concluded, as did the board, that plaintiff’s disability was unrelated to his work-related duties. …The evidence as a whole supports the finding that plaintiff’s disability resulted from the line-of-duty aggravation of his preexisting condition.”
The court reversed the board’s decision to grant Valadez a not-in-duty disability pension and ordered it to grant him a line-of-duty disability pension instead.