2023 IL App (1st) 220879
No. 1-22-0879
Opinion filed May 22, 2023.
First Division
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
JAMES IVETIC, on His own Behalf and on Behalf of) Appeal from the His Spouse, Nancy Ivetic, and NANCY IVETIC, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) No. 2019 CH 4304 ) THE BENSENVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ) The Honorable NO. 2, ) Caroline Kate Moreland, ) Judge Presiding. Defendant-Appellant. ) _____________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE LAVIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Pucinski and Coghlan concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 James Ivetic developed a debilitating form of cancer during the course of his nearly 30-
year career as a firefighter with the Bensenville Fire Protection District No. 2 (District). After
James retired, he was awarded a line-of-duty disability pension (40 ILCS 5/3-114.1 (West 2010))
by the Board of Trustees of the Bensenville Pension Fund (Board) after the Board determined
that James’ acts of duty were either the cause of or a contributing cause of his cancer. James No. 1-22-0879
subsequently applied for health insurance premium benefits for him and his wife, Nancy Ivetic
(plaintiffs), pursuant to section 10 of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act (Act) (820 ILCS
320/10 (West 2014)).
¶2 The District denied James’ request, leading plaintiffs to file the instant declaratory
judgment action, seeking a declaration that the District was obligated to pay their health
insurance premiums. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to whether James
qualified for the benefits under the Act. After considering the evidence presented at the Board’s
pension hearing, among other things, the circuit court determined that the District had to pay
plaintiffs’ health insurance premiums. The court consequently granted plaintiffs’ summary
judgment motion.
¶3 On appeal, the District argues that the circuit court erroneously granted summary
judgment to plaintiffs because James did not meet the statutory requirements of suffering a
catastrophic injury that resulted from his response to what is reasonably believed to be an
emergency under the Act. We disagree, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm the circuit
court’s judgment.
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 The following relevant facts are not in dispute.
¶6 James became a firefighter with the District on April 17, 1979. He was eventually
promoted to lieutenant in 1985. During the course of his career, James responded to numerous
structural, house, and dumpster fires. In performing these duties, James was exposed at various
times to certain chemicals, fertilizers, and radiation, some of which were known or suspected
carcinogens. James was also exposed to carcinogens from other sources unrelated to his
employment with the District, as will be discussed in more detail below.
-2- No. 1-22-0879
¶7 In January 2008, James was diagnosed with a condition called nondisabling small
lymphocytic lymphoma which later evolved and developed into chronic lymphocytic leukemia
(CLL/SLL), requiring a complete bone marrow transplant and resulting in total disability. James’
bone marrow biopsy confirmed that his cancer was stage IV. According to his primary doctor,
James had been suffering from the cancer for at least two years. James received a second opinion
from Patricia Madej, M.D., who recommended a form of chemotherapy treatment called
Rituxan. James underwent treatment and continued working for the District until June 2008,
when he retired.
¶8 In October 2012, James applied for a line-of-duty disability pension, or alternatively, an
occupational disease disability pension. The Board initially sought guidance from the Illinois
Department of Insurance as to whether James, a retired firefighter, was eligible to seek disability
pension benefits for his cancer. The Illinois Department of Insurance (Department) issued an
advisory opinion that stated:
“It is the opinion of the Public Pension Division of the Department of Insurance
that once a firefighter retires or is in receipt of a retirement pension under 40 ILCS 5/4-
109, the firefighter has terminated service with the fire department, is no longer in active
service and is no longer eligible to receive a disability pension benefit from the pension
fund. Retirement benefits only cease to be paid if the individual is rehired into the fire
service of the municipality (40 ILCS 5/4-117), the individual is deceased (40 ILCS 5/4-
114) or the individual is convicted of a felony relating to service as a firefighter (40 ILCS
5/4-138).
Article 4 does provide a firefighter in receipt of a disability pension the ability to
convert the disability pension to a retirement pension (40 ILCS 5/4-113). However, it
-3- No. 1-22-0879
does not provide the ability to convert a retirement pension to a disability pension. Based
on the above, the Board would appear to lack the authority to shift a previous retirement
award under 40 ILCS 5/4-109 to a disability pension.”
After receiving the Department’s advisory opinion, the Board conducted a special meeting
regarding James’ pension application. The Board then dismissed James’ application without
holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding that James was not entitled to either a line-of-duty
disability pension or an occupational disease disability pension as a matter of law because the
Board lacked jurisdiction to undertake a pension disability hearing for a retired firefighter. While
James was allowed to address the Board following its decision, he was not allowed to present
any medical records or medical testimony at that time.
¶9 James subsequently filed a complaint for administrative review against the Board in the
circuit court of Cook County, alleging, in the main, that the Board erred by not affording him an
evidentiary hearing on his pension application. The circuit court ultimately agreed, and in a
lengthy decision issued on March 12, 2014, the court reversed the Board’s decision and
remanded the matter for a full evidentiary hearing on James’ application. In reaching its decision,
the court found that a retired firefighter, like James, is eligible to apply for a line-of-duty
disability pension. The court, however, found that a retired firefighter is not eligible to apply for
an occupational disease disability pension under the law.
¶ 10 A. The Board’s Evidentiary Hearing
¶ 11 The Board held a hearing on James’ pension application beginning on September 18,
2015. The evidence showed that James worked at a restaurant and a grocery store prior to
becoming a firefighter. Additionally, during his career as a firefighter, James worked a number
of part-time jobs, including being taxi and truck drivers and remodeling homes. James admitted
-4- No. 1-22-0879
that he was likely exposed to some chemicals from his part-time jobs, like oil-based paints and
wallpaper removing chemicals.
¶ 12 As to his exposure to chemicals from his work as a firefighter, James testified that he
often worked 24-hour shifts and that he lived and slept at the station where the fire equipment
was housed. Each morning James would “test vehicles by running them for 15 or 20 minutes, test
all the pumps, make sure the vehicle[s] started, [make sure] nothing was leaking, [and] all the
equipment was on the vehicle.” He was often exposed to fumes during these tasks. Specifically,
James noted that the station had an old Mack truck that would “smoke a lot.” At the time, there
was an “inadequate ventilation system,” which led to the whole floor getting “smoked out.”
James testified: “You would go on break and the smoke would waft into the station. Sometimes
the secretary would tell you her eyes are burning, can we shut [the] vehicles off.” James further
testified:
“Our apparatus room floors always had film on them. We tried washing them
down just with regular soap and water. We’ve done that twice. I think we had *** an
outside agency paint and they had to wash everything down again because you would see
it leaking on the walls.”
¶ 13 In addition, although James had “bunker gear” on when he responded to fires, he
sometimes entered burning buildings without an air supply since air packs were not mandated
until later in his career. Moreover, James, in responding to fires, had to remove ceilings or walls
consisting of insulation, drywall and/or plaster to make sure there was no fire behind them.
According to James, fire residue was often on his clothing and bunker gear:
“If it was a house fire at the start, it would be—well, even at the end, you would
still have residue of black smoke on it. It smelled like a fire. Your clothes could be wet.
-5- No. 1-22-0879
They could be soaked with whatever…. was in that building [that] got on you, whatever
melted in the building.”
James explained there was little to no cleaning protocol for the firefighters’ gear: “We would use
a garden hose or you would wash your gear once in a great while. Nothing never really got
cleaned.”
¶ 14 In addition to James’ testimony, the Board considered three independent medical
evaluations of James by physicians Olga Frankfurt, M.D., Richard Larsen, M.D., and Peter Orris,
M.D. We note that all three physicians concluded that James’ cancer caused him to become
permanently disabled for service as a firefighter.
¶ 15 As to the cause of James’ cancer, Dr. Frankfurt opined:
“It is medically possible that development and/or progression of [James’]
CLL/SLL occurred as a result of exposure to chemicals and fumes that [James] had been
exposed to while performing his duties as a fire fighter [sic]. However, there is no
medical literature directly linking fire-fighting occupation and CLL/SLL. Based on the
available clinical trials conducted to identify risk factors for development of CLL/SLL,
history of living or working on a farm (particularly crop farming, which suggest exposure
to fertilizer) was significantly associated with development of CLL/SLL. According to
[James], he has been exposed to fertilizer repeatedly.”
Dr. Frankfurt concluded:
“It is impossible to definitively determine weather [sic] above mentioned
exposures have contributed to the development and/or progression of [James’] CLL/SLL.
Similarly, I can not [sic] definitively state that such exposures had no effect of the
carcinogenesis.”
-6- No. 1-22-0879
¶ 16 Dr. Larsen similarly opined:
“Though [James] likely had multiple exposures to a variety of unknown toxins
during his work as a firefighter, there are no clearly discernable occupational or
environmental risk factors that predispose to CLL/SLL. Although there has been an
increase in other subtypes of leukemia and lymphoproliferative disorders with certain
chemical or radiation exposures, nothing has been proven with CLL/SLL and the etiology
remains unknown.”
Dr. Larsen further noted:
“[James] has been exposed to aerosolized chemicals, burning barns, and
significant combustion products, but there is no epidemiological evidence or proposed
biological mechanism of action that we are aware of to implicate these exposures in the
development of CLL/SLL.”
¶ 17 Dr. Orris, on the other hand, opined that James’ cancer was the direct result of his job
duties. In his evaluation of James, Dr. Orris stated:
“[James’] disability is the result *** of a disabling cancer and subsequent need for
treatment. It is not only medically possible, but more likely than not that repeated
exposure to carcinogens encountered while performing required duties when employed as
a firefighter for the Bensenville Fire Department, contributed to his development of
chronic lymphocytic leukemia.”
Dr. Orris further noted:
“Firefighters are exposed to numerous combustion products that are known or
suspected carcinogens according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) (ie: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, formaldehyde, benzene, chromium,
-7- No. 1-22-0879
dioxins, asbestos, particular matter, arsenic, and others). Exposure to those chemicals will
vary depending on the source of the fire, its heat, meteorologic conditions at the time and
the specific activities of the firefighter. For over half of his career, it was routine practice
to wear gear and uniforms shift after shift without washing. Many of the above
mentioned carcinogens had the opportunity to accumulate on this clothing, exposing him
repeatedly in the firehouse as it was next to his bed and anytime he put it on again.
Although [James] has worn a self-contained breathing apparatus during firefighting
activities, he reports not wearing this or other respiratory protection during overhaul.
Overhaul involves pulling walls and floors apart and often removing furniture to find and
extinguish fires. The overhaul process can last several hours and it is during this time that
there is [the] highest concern for inhalational, ingestion, as well as increased dermal
exposure to the previously mentioned carcinogens as many are pyrolosis [sic] products of
incomplete combustion and often aerosolized after a fire.”
¶ 18 Finally, Dr. Orris noted that multiple studies have shown there is a “statistically
significant excess risk for all cancer types among firefighters.” More specifically, Dr. Orris noted
that a study in the United States found that among 19,309 male firefighters, there were 1,333
cancer deaths and 2,609 cancer incidence cases. As relevant here, “[t]his study found that
chronic lymphocytic leukemia compromised 32% of leukemia incidence cases and a positive
association between fire-runs and leukemia mortality.” In conclusion, Dr. Orris opined that, more
likely than not, James’ cancer was “in part a result of his exposures as a fire fighter [sic].”
¶ 19 B. The Board’s Decision
¶ 20 Following the hearing, the Board concluded that James’ cancer caused him to become
permanently disabled for service as a firefighter and that James had shown, by a preponderance
-8- No. 1-22-0879
of the evidence, that the cumulative effects of his acts of duty either caused, or more likely were
a contributing causative factor to, his cancer. In reaching its decision, the Board found there was
evidence that James had been exposed to certain chemicals, fertilizer, and radiation both on the
job and from other non-job-related sources. The Board thus awarded a line-of-duty disability
pension to James.
¶ 21 James, thereafter, applied for health insurance premium benefits from the District for him
and his wife. The District denied James’ request, concluding that he suffered from cancer, which
was a disabling “illness,” rather than an “injury,” and therefore, he was not entitled to the
additional health insurance benefits. The District further concluded that James had not
established that he was injured in the course of responding to what he reasonably believed was
an emergency, as required under the Act.
¶ 22 C. Instant Declaratory Judgment Action
¶ 23 Plaintiffs filed the instant declaratory judgment action against the District in the circuit
court, seeking a declaration that the District was obligated to pay their health insurance
premiums. In response, the District argued that James did not meet the statutory requirements of
suffering a catastrophic injury and of having an injury that resulted from an emergency response,
and thus plaintiffs were not entitled to those additional benefits. The parties filed cross-motions
for summary judgment on the issue.
¶ 24 Following briefing from the parties, the circuit court issued a lengthy decision on
February 7, 2022, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. In reaching its conclusion
that plaintiffs were entitled to health insurance premium benefits from the District, the court
noted that the medical experts “were either inconclusive or determinative that James’ [cancer]
was caused by exposure to toxic substances.” The court also noted that it could not “set aside the
-9- No. 1-22-0879
finding of the Bensenville Pension Board that James was injured in the line of duty as a result of
exposure to substances while he was a firefighter.” Based on that finding, the court concluded
that James had satisfied the “catastrophic injury” prong of the Act. The court then concluded that
the evidence showed “there were many emergencies that James responded to as a firefighter
where he was exposed to substances,” thereby satisfying the emergency prong of the Act.
Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs were entitled to health insurance premium benefits
dating from the time James was found to be “catastrophically injured” (i.e., April 22, 2016).
¶ 25 This appeal followed.
¶ 26 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 27 Disposition by summary judgment is appropriate when the issue presents a question of
law, which, as relevant here, may involve the construction of and a determination of the parties’
rights and obligations under a statute. Oswald v. Hamer, 2018 IL 122203, ¶ 9. Summary
judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists such that the movants are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Caremark Rx, Inc., 359 Ill.
App. 3d 749, 755 (2005). Additionally, where, as here, the parties file cross-motions for
summary judgment, they concede the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and invite the
court to decide the questions presented as a matter of law. Id.; Daniel v. Aon Corp., 2011 IL App
(1st) 101508, ¶ 17; Illinois Emcasco Insurance Co. v. Tufano, 2016 IL App (1st) 151196, ¶ 17.
As such, the sole issue before this court is whether plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a
matter of law, and as with all questions of law, our review is de novo. Steadfast Insurance Co.,
359 Ill. App. 3d at 755; Daniel, 2011 IL App (1st) 101508, ¶ 17. De novo review is also
appropriate because we are construing a statute, which raises a question of law. Village of
Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, ¶ 18.
- 10 - No. 1-22-0879
¶ 28 A court’s primary objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the
legislature’s intent. Id. ¶ 19. “All other rules of statutory construction are subordinate to this
cardinal principle.” Roberts v. Alexandria Transportation, Inc., 2021 IL 126249, ¶ 29. The best
indicator of legislative intent is a statute’s plain language, which must be given its plain and
ordinary meaning. Id. Additionally, a reviewing court must consider all statutory provisions as a
whole. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, NA v. Envirobusiness, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 133575,
¶ 16. When a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied without resorting to
other aids of construction. Id. Contrarily, where a statute’s language is ambiguous, we may look
to other sources to determine legislative intent. Id. A statute is ambiguous if well informed
persons could reasonably interpret the same statute in more than one manner. Id.
¶ 29 Section 4-110 of the Illinois Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/4-110 (West 2010)), governing
line-of-duty disability pensions, provides that
“[i]f a firefighter, as the result of sickness, accident or injury incurred in or resulting from
the performance of an act of duty or from the cumulative effects of acts of duty, is found,
pursuant to Section 4-112, to be physically or mentally permanently disabled for service
in the fire department, so as to render necessary his or her being placed on disability
pension, the firefighter shall be entitled to a disability pension equal to the greater of
(1) 65% of the monthly salary attached to the rank held by him or her in the fire
department at the date he or she is removed from the municipality’s fire department
payroll or (2) the retirement pension that the firefighter would be eligible to receive if he
or she retired (but not including any automatic annual increase in that retirement
pension).”
- 11 - No. 1-22-0879
¶ 30 Additionally, section 10(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n employer who
employs a full-time *** firefighter, who, on or after the effective date of this Act suffers a
catastrophic injury or is killed in the line of duty shall pay the entire premium of the employer’s
health insurance plan for the injured employee, [and] the injured employee’s spouse.” 820 ILCS
320/10(a) (West 2014). In order for the firefighter to be eligible for insurance coverage under the
Act, “the injury or death must have occurred as the result of the *** firefighter’s response to
what is reasonably believed to be an emergency, an unlawful act perpetrated by another, or
during the investigation of a criminal act.” Id. § 10(b).
¶ 31 A. “Catastrophic Injury” Prong
¶ 32 The District argues that plaintiffs were not entitled to health insurance premium benefits
under the Act because James’ cancer, a disease, did not constitute a “catastrophic injury,” and
furthermore, James did not establish that his cancer resulted from an emergency response. We
disagree.
¶ 33 The Illinois Supreme Court has held that, where, as here, a pension board awards a line-
of-duty disability pension, this establishes as a matter of law that the public safety employee has
suffered a catastrophic injury under section 10(a) of the Act. In Krohe v. City of Bloomington,
204 Ill. 2d 392, 400 (2003), the supreme court determined that the term “catastrophic injury,” as
used in section 10(a) of the Act, was facially ambiguous. Id. at 397. The court then considered
the legislative history of House Bill 1347, which sought to enact the Act, to determine the term’s
meaning. Id. at 398. Prior to the House of Representatives’ initial vote on House Bill 1347, the
Bill’s sponsor, Representative Art Tenhouse, stated:
“1347 is a simple Bill. It simply provides that full-time law enforcement officers
and firefighters that are killed or disabled in the line of duty, we’re going to continue the
- 12 - No. 1-22-0879
health benefits for the officer’s children and spouse.” (Emphasis added.) 90th Ill. Gen.
Assem., House Proceedings, Apr. 14, 1997, at 180 (statements of Representative
Tenhouse).
Following those remarks, House Bill 1347 passed by a vote of 113 to 4. Krohe, 204 Ill. 2d at
399.
¶ 34 Prior to the Senate’s vote on House Bill 1347, Senator Laura Kent Donahue echoed
Senator Tenhouse’s sentiments, stating:
“And what this does is that it provides that for full-time law enforcement officers
and firefighters that are killed or disabled in the line of duty shall continue the health
benefits for the officer or the firefighter, their spouses and their children.” (Emphasis
added.) 90th Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, May 16, 1997, at 192 (statements of
Senator Donahue).
While the Senate passed House Bill 1347, Governor Jim Edgar subsequently vetoed the bill,
leading the Senate to debate whether to override his veto. Prior to a final vote on the matter,
Senator Donahue stated:
“I’d like to say for the sake of the record what we mean by catastrophically
injured. What it means is that it is our intent to define ‘catastrophically injured’ as a
police officer or firefighter who, due to injuries, has been forced to take a line-of-duty
disability.” 90th Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, Nov. 14, 1997, at 136 (statements
of Senator Donahue).
The Senate thereafter overrode the Governor’s veto of House Bill 1347 by a vote of 58 to 1.
Krohe, 204 Ill. 2d at 398.
- 13 - No. 1-22-0879
¶ 35 The Krohe court ultimately deferred to the legislature’s judgment, stating, “In light of this
unambiguous legislative history, and in light of section 10(a)’s facial ambiguity, we will defer to
the legislature’s judgment.” Id. at 400. The court thus construed the phrase “catastrophic injury”
as synonymous with “an injury resulting in a line-of-duty disability under section 4-110 of the
[Pension] Code.” Id.
¶ 36 Similarly, in Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills, 2011 IL 111838, ¶ 17, the supreme
court considered the same legislative history of section 10(a) of the Act, noting that “one of [the
Act’s] primary purposes is to continue the provision of employer-sponsored health insurance
coverage for officers and the families of officers who, due to a line-of-duty injury, have been
forced to take a line-of-duty disability pension.” The Nowak court expanded on this issue, noting
that “[the Act] ensures a continuation of health insurance coverage following the termination of
the officer’s employment.” (Emphasis in original.) Id.
¶ 37 Finally, in Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, the supreme court again
considered this issue. The court reiterated that “proof of a line-of-duty disability pension
establishes a catastrophic injury under section 10(a) of the Act as a matter of law.” Id. ¶ 33. The
court thus held that “where it is uncontroverted that a line-of-duty disability pension has been
awarded, section 10(a) is satisfied, and there is no need to engage in discovery or present
evidence regarding the claimant’s injury.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
¶ 38 In this case, as set forth, it is undisputed that James was awarded a line-of-duty disability
pension by the Board. Because James was awarded a line-of-duty disability pension, section
10(a) of the Act was satisfied. In other words, the line-of-duty disability pension conclusively
established that James suffered a “catastrophic injury” as a matter of law. While the District
urges us to depart from well-settled case law on this issue, we decline to do so. Cf. Bremer v.
- 14 - No. 1-22-0879
City of Rockford, 2016 IL 119889, ¶ 34 (concluding “that the legislature did not intend the phrase
‘catastrophic injury’ in section 10(a) of the [Act] to be synonymous with a disease resulting in
the award of an occupational disease disability pension as defined by section 4-110.1 of the
Pension Code” (emphasis added)).
¶ 39 We note that to the extent the District argues in its brief that James’ medical condition
“is, in realty, an occupational disease, regardless of what type of pension he was awarded,” this
is a factual issue. As stated, the parties here chose to litigate plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment
action through cross-motions for summary judgment, and in doing so, they agreed that no factual
issues exist; rather, the decision turns on purely legal issues. Accordingly, we will not engage in
a factual analysis of what type of disease James suffered from when it is undisputed that he
suffered a catastrophic injury under the law.
¶ 40 B. Emergency Prong
¶ 41 Next, we must determine whether James’ cancer occurred as the result of his response to
what is reasonably believed to be an emergency under section 10(b) of the Act. Here, the Board
awarded James a line-of-duty disability pension, concluding that he had shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the cumulative effects of his acts of duty, either caused, or
more likely were a contributing cause of, his cancer. In reaching its decision, the Board found
that James was exposed “to certain chemicals, fertilizer and radiation, which are known or
suspected carcinogens, during fire suppression, overhaul, fire inspection, hazmat responses and
other duties.” The Board further found that “the exposures occurred while [James] was
performing duties undertaken during his career and while engaged in performing acts as an
active fireman having the direct purpose of saving the life or property of another person when he
was injured by these exposures.” Likewise, the circuit concluded that the evidence showed “there
- 15 - No. 1-22-0879
were many emergencies that James responded to as a firefighter where he was exposed to [the]
substances.” The court thus held that plaintiffs satisfied section 10(b) of the Act.
¶ 42 Here, the District essentially argues that James cannot satisfy the emergency prong of
section 10 because there was no evidence of a direct cause of his cancer. Stated differently, in
order to recover benefits under the Act, James had to prove that his injury was received during an
emergency response and that it was the sole cause of his cancer. This argument, however,
ignores that “[a]n injury may have more than one proximate cause.” (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Richter v. Village of Oak Brook, 2011 IL App (2d) 100114, ¶ 21. Under Illinois law,
proximate cause is defined as a cause that, in the natural or ordinary course of events, produced
the plaintiff’s injury, but a cause need not be the only, last, or nearest cause; rather, the
combination of multiple causes may result in the injury. Id.
¶ 43 Moreover, as stated, the Board found that James was exposed to carcinogens when he
was responding to emergencies and that those exposures were either the cause of or a
contributing cause of his cancer. See Gaffney v. Board of Trustees of the Orland Fire Protection
District, 2012 IL 110012, ¶ 63 (noting that “section 10(b) covers situations arising in the
performance of a public safety employee’s job” and that “[t]he term ‘emergency’ in section
10(b), as applied to a firefighter, connotes the sense that either a person or property is in some
form of imminent danger”). The Board’s finding was supported by all three independent medical
evaluations of James, as well as by James’ own testimony. Because the exposures at least
contributed to James’ cancer, plaintiffs can recover under the Act. See Richter, 2011 IL App (2d)
100114, ¶ 21 (holding the plaintiff could recover under the Act so long as the injury he sustained
during an emergency response was a contributing cause of his disability, even if it was not the
sole cause of that disability). In sum, we conclude that the circuit court properly granted
- 16 - No. 1-22-0879
summary judgment to plaintiffs because they satisfied both the catastrophic injury and
emergency prongs of the Act and therefore were entitled to health insurance premium benefits
from the District.
¶ 44 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 45 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
¶ 46 Affirmed.
- 17 - No. 1-22-0879
Ivetic v. Bensenville Fire Protection District No. 2, 2023 IL App (1st) 220879
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 2019-CH- 4304; the Hon. Caroline Kate Moreland, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys Ericka J. Thomas, of Ottosen DiNolfo Hasenbalg & Castaldo, Ltd., for of Naperville, for appellant. Appellant:
Attorneys Thomas W. Duda, of Palatine, for appellees. for Appellee:
- 18 -