2023 IL App (3d) 220365
Opinion filed July 14, 2023 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
ERIC L. THOMSEN, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Will County, Illinois, ) v. ) Appeal No. 3-22-0365 ) Circuit No. 22-MR-43 THE VILLAGE OF BOLINGBROOK, ) THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ) THE VILLAGE OF BOLINGBROOK, and ) and MEGAN ROCHE STEIGAUF, ) ) Defendants ) ) ) (The Village of Bolingbrook and the Village ) Honorable Board of Trustees of the Village of Bolingbrook,) John C. Anderson, Defendants-Appellees). ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McDade and Peterson concurred in the judgment and opinion. ____________________________________________________________________________
OPINION
¶1 Plaintiff, Eric L. Thomsen, a firefighter/paramedic with the Village of Bolingbrook Fire
Department, was awarded a line-of-duty disability pension. He subsequently filed an application
with the Village of Bolingbrook, for the payment of his health insurance premiums, pursuant to
the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act (Act) (820 ILCS 320/1 et seq. (West 2020)). Following an adjudication hearing, the hearing officer denied plaintiff’s application. Plaintiff filed a
complaint for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court against the Village of Bolingbrook and its
board of trustees (defendants or, collectively, the Village) and moved for summary judgment on
his claim. 1 After briefing and argument, the circuit court denied the motion and entered judgment
for defendants. Plaintiff timely appealed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the circuit
court’s judgment.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 To place our discussion of the underlying proceedings in context, we first discuss the
relevant portion of the Act and an overview of our supreme court’s interpretation of the statute.
¶4 A. Act
¶5 The purpose of the Act, enacted in 1997, is to continue the provision of employer-
sponsored health insurance coverage for public safety employees who are killed or
“catastrophically injured” in the line of duty. Id. § 10(a); Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills,
2011 IL 111838, ¶ 16. Section 10 of the statute, titled “Required health coverage benefits,”
provides in relevant part:
“(a) An employer who employs a full-time law enforcement, correctional or
correctional probation officer, or 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, the injured employee’s
spouse, and for each dependent child of the injured employee until the child reaches the
age of majority or until the end of the calendar year in which the child reaches the age of
1 Plaintiff also named the hearing officer as a defendant and initially included an alternative claim for administrative review. However, the circuit court granted the parties’ agreed motion to dismiss the hearing officer, as well as plaintiff’s unopposed motion to dismiss the alternative count. 2 25 if the child continues to be dependent for support or the child is a full-time or part-
time student and is dependent for support. ***
***
(b) In order for the law enforcement, correctional or correctional probation
officer, firefighter, spouse, or dependent children to be eligible for insurance coverage
under this Act, the injury or death must have occurred as the result of the officer’s
response to fresh pursuit, the officer or 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.” 820 ILCS 320/10(a), (b) (West 2020).
¶6 The term “catastrophic injury” is not defined in the statute. However, our supreme court
squarely addressed its meaning in Krohe v. City of Bloomington, 204 Ill. 2d 392 (2003). Noting
that the term was facially ambiguous, the court resorted to the unambiguous legislative history
supporting that “catastrophic injury” is “synonymous with an injury resulting in a line-of-duty
disability under section 4-110 of the [Pension] Code.” Id. at 397-400 (“ ‘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.’ ” (quoting 90th Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings,
November 14, 1997, at 136 (statements of Senator Donahue))); 90th Ill. Gen. Assem., House
Proceedings, October 28, 1997, at 16 (statements of Representative Tenhouse) (“House Bill 1347
[p]rovides that employers of full-time law enforcement and firefighters who are killed or
disabled in the line of duty, shall continue health benefits for the officer or fire fighter and the
spouse and children, thereof.” (Emphasis added.)).
3 ¶7 The holding in Krohe “has never been disturbed.” International Ass’n of Fire Fighters,
Local 50 v. City of Peoria, 2022 IL 127040, ¶ 4. Indeed, the supreme court reaffirmed the
holding in Nowak (Nowak, 2011 IL 111838, ¶ 12 (“ ‘catastrophic injury’ is a term of art, and it
means an injury that results in the awarding of a line-of-duty disability pension”)), and in Heelan
(Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, ¶ 27 (“This court decided Krohe in 2003
and Nowak in 20[11], but the legislature has not altered this court’s construction of ‘catastrophic
injury’ as used in section 10(a) of the Act. ‘Our interpretation is considered part of the statute
itself until the legislature amends it contrary to that interpretation. [Citation.]’ ”)).
¶8 Against this backdrop, we recount the relevant portions of the proceedings with respect to
plaintiff’s award of a line-of-duty disability pension and his subsequent application for benefits
under the Act.
¶9 B. Pension Proceeding
¶ 10 Plaintiff began his employment with the Village’s fire department in 2008. On January
14, 2019, he applied for a line-of-duty disability pension, pursuant to section 4-110 of the Illinois
Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/4-110 (West 2018) (allowing a line-of-duty disability pension for
“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”)). Plaintiff’s application stated as follows:
“While at work as a firefighter for the Village of Bolingbrook on January 15,
2018, I slipped on some ice when stepping out of an ambulance on an emergency call,
and twisted my back. I did not fall. I returned to the fire station and was attempting to
start a chainsaw when I noted increasing pain in my low back area and pain in my left
elbow. Since that time, I have had persistent pain in the low back area; pain in the elbow
is intermittent.”
4 ¶ 11 A hearing on plaintiff’s application proceeded before the Board of Trustees of the Village
of Bolingbrook Firefighters’ Pension Fund (Pension Board) on June 14, 2021, following which,
the Pension Board granted plaintiff’s application for a line-of-duty disability pension. In its
written decision, approved on October 18, 2021, the Pension Board summarized the testimony
and evidence presented, including the testimony of plaintiff and his colleague Jason Fuggiti (a
Village of Bolingbrook Fire Department engineer) regarding plaintiff’s injury and the
independent medical examination findings.
¶ 12 In concluding that plaintiff established the requisite elements under section 4-110 of the
Pension Code, the Pension Board found that (1) plaintiff was a firefighter, (2) he was
“physically, permanently disabled for service in the Department as a result of the condition of his
right shoulder,” (3) plaintiff’s “injury was incurred in or resulted from the performance of an act
of duty or from the cumulative effects of acts of duty,” and it was “clear from the record that his
actions, both slipping on the ice while responding to an emergency call and, also, his starting of
the chainsaw during routine maintenance were the causes of his permanent disability,” and
(4) plaintiff’s “permanent disability renders it necessary to place him on a disability pension.”
¶ 13 The Pension Board further found that plaintiff “did not have any pre-existing,
documented, injuries to his back and/or hip prior to January 15, 2018” and was working full and
unrestricted duties. The Pension Board noted that “[n]ot one of his treating doctors during his
entire course of treatment cleared him for full and unrestricted duties” and that two of the three
independent medical providers found plaintiff permanently disabled. Rejecting one of these two
independent medical provider’s opinion that plaintiff’s subsequent hip surgery was unrelated to
the January 15, 2018, injury, the Pension Board found that “the only logical reason in the record
for the hip injury was the slip on the ice and the manual pulling of the chainsaw on January 15,
5 2018.” The Pension Board also rejected the opinion of the third independent medical provider
that plaintiff was not disabled.
¶ 14 In sum, the Pension Board concluded that, “[a]fter weighing all of the evidence and
testimony in the record, observing the Applicant at Hearing, and considering the medical
evidence which shows no significant pre-existing issues, it is clear that Applicant injured himself
on January 15, 2018[,] and is still suffering the consequences of that.” The Pension Board
specified that plaintiff “injured his back and hip while slipping on the ice exiting the Ambulance,
also, injured his back and hip and elbow while starting the chainsaw during the routine
maintenance check.” Accordingly, plaintiff’s application was granted, and he was awarded a
line-of-duty disability pension.
¶ 15 C. Act Proceeding
¶ 16 On September 22, 2021, plaintiff applied to the Village for the payment of his health
insurance premiums pursuant to the Act. The Act application requests a description of when,
where, and how the catastrophic injury occurred. Plaintiff responded:
“While at work as a firefighter for the Village of Bolingbrook on January 15,
2018, I slipped on some ice when stepping out of an ambulance on an emergency and
twisted my back. I returned to the fire station and was attempting to start a chainsaw
when I noticed increasing pain in my low back area and pain in my left elbow. Since that
time, I have had persistent pain in the low back area; pain in the elbow is Intermittent.”
Plaintiff further specified in his application that the catastrophic injury occurred as a result of his
response to what was reasonably believed to be an emergency.
¶ 17 An adjudication hearing on plaintiff’s Act application proceeded before a hearing officer
on December 9, 2021. At the inception of the hearing, the Village stipulated that the line-of-duty
6 disability pension established a “catastrophic injury” for purposes of section 10(a) and that the
only issue was whether plaintiff satisfied section 10(b)’s requirement that the injury occurred as
the result of his response to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency.
¶ 18 We summarize the relevant evidence from the adjudication hearing. Plaintiff testified
that, on the morning of January 15, 2018, he was dispatched to an accident with injuries on
Interstate 55 and drove his assigned ambulance with lights and sirens to the scene. Plaintiff’s
battalion chief, the Illinois State Police, and a Romeoville Fire Department fire truck were
already at the scene when he arrived. He pulled up behind the vehicle involved in the accident
and in front the police car and set up “blocking” to help secure the scene by parking at an angle
and “crowd[ing] the middle lanes.” Plaintiff explained that, when he exited the ambulance in his
bunker pants and boots, he slipped on what he believed to be ice and felt a sharp pain in his back
that “kind of stopped me in my tracks.” Plaintiff “did a big wince, kind of stabilized myself, took
a couple deep breaths and then started to just move on, and then drove out—trying to secure the
scene and do my job.” Plaintiff proceeded to render care to the occupants of the vehicle involved
in the accident.
¶ 19 Plaintiff testified that he had conversations with two people at the scene about the
incident. First, when plaintiff’s colleague Fuggiti arrived at the scene, plaintiff told him that he
had slipped when exiting the ambulance. Second, as he and his partner, Tara Moser, were
returning to the ambulance, he told Moser that his back was “killing” him. Fuggiti testified that,
when he arrived at the scene, he saw plaintiff “stretching his back” and “kind of moving left to
right and leaning back.” Fuggiti asked plaintiff if he was okay, and plaintiff responded that he
“slipped getting out of the ambulance because there was snow on the ground.”
7 ¶ 20 Plaintiff acknowledged that he did not immediately tell anyone at the station about the
incident when he returned there after the dispatch call. Upon returning to the station, plaintiff and
Moser began their weekly checks on the ambulance and its engine. They were asked to check the
saws. Plaintiff testified that his back was increasingly hurting at that point. Plaintiff repeatedly
pulled the chainsaw he was checking, but it would not start. Moser was likewise having
difficulty with starting a circular saw, so plaintiff assisted her in starting it, and then returned to
his saw. After a couple more “rounds of trying,” right before the final pull, the saw “kicked
back,” and plaintiff “felt like a burning in my left elbow.” Plaintiff continued to pull, got it
started, and finished the check on the saws.
¶ 21 Plaintiff further testified that, after putting away the saws, his lieutenant requested
assistance in checking the heavy extrication tools on the back of the engine. Plaintiff “went to go
grab the spreaders, the large extrication tool spreader, and reached out over the back of the
engine, grabbed a hold of it and pulled and that’s when I winced, then my back locked up on me
***.” Plaintiff proceeded to conduct the standard checks on the tool spreader “and then
continued on.” Plaintiff testified that, later that afternoon, he told his lieutenant that he slipped
exiting the ambulance on I-55 and that “it was further aggravated” during the checks. According
to plaintiff, later in the evening, his lieutenant stated that “he noticed me wince, but said
nothing.”
¶ 22 Fuggiti testified that, later in the evening, at the firehouse, he noticed that plaintiff was in
some distress from his back pain. Fuggiti looked at plaintiff’s back and described it as swollen.
He made plaintiff an ice pack.
¶ 23 The evidence established that, before the end of his shift, plaintiff completed a “National
Fire Incident Reporting System Report” (NFIRS Report), regarding the dispatch to I-55. An
8 NFIRS Report is done for every dispatch call. In the report, plaintiff detailed the dispatch,
described the vehicles at the scene, and noted “NO INJURIES. POLICE MATTER ONLY.”
¶ 24 The “FIREHOUSE log” for plaintiff’s shift included a note from the lieutenant, stating:
“Shortly after completing the weekly check on Engine 5, Eric Thomsen advised
me that he had some back pain. Eric did not request any medical attention but did want
me to be aware of his situation. At the end of the shift Eric informed me that his back was
still stiff. I asked Eric to keep me informed of his situation.”
According to plaintiff, the lieutenant entered the report “after sleeping on it and not fully
recalling what [plaintiff] had told him the evening before.”
¶ 25 A three-page January 23, 2018, incident report, titled “Illinois Form 45: Employer’s First
Report of Injury,” was completed by the deputy fire chief. The first page of the report reflects the
following questions and answers: (1) “What was the employee doing when the accident
occurred? Repeatedly attempting to pull start a chain saw from Engine 5,” (2) “How did the
accident occur? Pulling start chain on chain saw and moving saw from compartment to floor,”
(3) “What was the injury or illness? List the part of body affected and explain how it was
affected. Mid and Lower Back,” and (4) “What object or substance, if any, directly harmed the
employee? Pulling motion of start chain.”
¶ 26 The second page of the report is the January 22, 2018, “Supervisor’s Investigation
Report,” completed by the battalion chief. The response provided in the section labeled
“Object/Equipment/Substance/Inflicting” was “Starting chain saw/moving hydraulic tools.” In
the section requesting a description of how the incident occurred, the response was:
“While doing the weekly engine tool checks on engine 5, FF/PM Thomsen while
repeatedly attempting to pull start a chain saw from engine 5 noticed some discomfort in
9 [h]is back. When Eric preceded to remove hydraulic tools from the vehicle[’s]
compartment to floor is when Eric notice[d] sharp pain in his mid and lower back area.”
¶ 27 The response to the question of “[w]hat acts, failures to act and/or conditions contributed
most directly to THIS ACCIDENT” was “Failure of chain saw not starting on multiple
attempts.” And finally, in the section requesting “the basic or fundamental reasons for the
existence of these acts and/or conditions,” the response provided was: “When starting a chain
saw one must use a manual rope starter to initiate operation of saw. Pull starting a chain saw
while under compression can lock up the starting rope jarring employee’s arm and back.”
¶ 28 The third and final page of the report, titled “Human Resources Report,” stated, in a
section for additional notes: “At the time of incident (1/15/2018) Eric Thomsen did not request
medical services offered to him. In the morning at the end of shift Eric still had some discomfort
to his back and again did not request medical treatment. Lt. Newton did log this in his daily
station log.” Plaintiff acknowledged that his slip on the ice was not included in the foregoing
reports but indicated that the responses were not complete or that some of his response had been
deleted during entry. Plaintiff elaborated that he told his battalion chief that he slipped getting
out of the ambulance, that he felt a pain, and that the injury was further aggravated throughout
the day while doing the weekly checks. His battalion chief told him that he “should stick with the
chain saw,” and plaintiff responded that he was not going to argue with him because he was late
for a doctor’s appointment.
¶ 29 Plaintiff’s medical records included 26 records from Premier Occupational Health titled
“Patient Visit Summary and Instructions.” The dates of the records spanned from January 22,
2018, to April 15, 2019, and included a section for “Patient’s Description of Problem.” On each
record, which plaintiff signed, the description stated, “While at work, I was doing weekly tool
10 check and I repeatedly tried to start a chainsaw when I felt lower back pain shortly after.”
Plaintiff testified that this section was “just a copy and paste” from record to record and
suggested that the appointment notes reflected additional information about his injuries.
¶ 30 Following the adjudication hearing, on January 14, 2022, the hearing officer denied
plaintiff’s Act application. In her written order, the hearing officer identified the issues to be
decided as follows: “Was the injury which Applicant received his line-of-duty disability pension
from a slip at an accident on I-55 or was the injury from repeatedly attempting to start a
chainsaw and hydraulic tools in Applicant’s normal course of employment in January 15, 2018.”
¶ 31 After a recitation of the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing officer
acknowledged, as a preliminary matter, that “[i]t need not be determined whether the Applicant’s
injury was catastrophic.” Rather, the supreme court’s decision in Heelan, 2015 IL 118170,
“made it ‘irrefutable’ that if an employee wins a line-of-duty disability pension, then he/she
suffered a catastrophic injury as a matter of law.”
¶ 32 However, the hearing officer noted that this did not mean that every firefighter who
received a line-of-duty disability pension is automatically entitled to benefits under the Act, as
this would render the requirements in section 10(b) “superfluous and meaningless.” While the
Village was not disputing that plaintiff’s injury was catastrophic under section 10(a), the Village
was
“disputing that the injury alleged which Applicant received line-of-duty pension was
from slipping at the accident on I-55—which would have been in response to what is
reasonably believed to be an emergency—or whether the injury was a result from
repeatedly attempting to start a chain saw and hydraulic tools—which occurred afterward
in Applicant’s normal course of employment.”
11 ¶ 33 The hearing officer found that “the accident on I-55 on January 15, 2018, was an
emergency.” However, the hearing officer proceeded to “turn to whether the injuries sustained
by the Applicant were a result of slipping on ice while exiting the ambulance at the scene of the
accident on I-55 or whether they were from repeatedly attempting to pull-start chainsaws and
tool checks during his shift on January 15, 2018.”
¶ 34 In answering this question, the hearing officer reasoned that there was minimal testimony
regarding how plaintiff injured his back from slipping on the ice. Namely, the hearing officer
queried: “How did he exit the ambulance? Which foot slipped? Did he fall to the ground? Did he
catch himself mid-fall? Was he injured from twisting? Did his back hit anything? Did any part of
his body hit anything? No one saw the slip or fall.” Moreover, the hearing officer reasoned, after
slipping, plaintiff performed his duties at the scene by rendering care to the occupants of the
vehicle involved in the crash. The hearing officer further reasoned that, while Fuggiti testified
that he noticed plaintiff stretching at the scene, and plaintiff told him that he slipped getting out
of the ambulance, plaintiff “did not tell him his back was killing him or that he was injured.”
And while plaintiff testified that he told Moser that his back was killing him, Moser did not
testify. Thus, the hearing officer concluded, “[b]esides his own testimony, there is no evidence
that [plaintiff] told any supervisor that he slipped on ice or snow and injured himself.”
¶ 35 Plaintiff did not report the injury upon his return to the station and proceeded to perform
his duties by conducting the equipment checks. The hearing officer queried: “If his back was
killing him, why did he not tell his lieutenant when the lieutenant asked him to check the saws
that he was injured as a result of slipping on ice during the morning call.” And when asked to
check the heavy extrication tools, plaintiff likewise again did not notify his lieutenant of his
injury. While Fuggiti testified that plaintiff’s back was swollen that evening, it could have been
12 swollen as result of repeatedly trying to start the chainsaws and checking the heavy extrication
tools.
¶ 36 Turning to the incident reports, the hearing officer noted that “[n]one of these documents
mention Applicant’s injury as a result of a slip on I-55 at the scene of an accident.” With respect
to the medical records, the hearing officer acknowledged that the description of the problem is
copied and pasted on all subsequent records but pointed out that plaintiff had “every opportunity
to give a differen[t] description of how his injury occurred, without pressure from any superior,
and/or reference the slip on I-55 previously on the day. However, there is none.”
¶ 37 In sum, the hearing officer found that plaintiff did not prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that his injuries occurred during an emergency accident on January 15, 2018. Rather,
the evidence established that plaintiff’s injuries were the result of “repeatedly attempting to pull-
start chainsaws and tool checks” during his January 15, 2018, shift. Accordingly, the hearing
officer declined to award benefits under the Act on the basis that plaintiff failed to satisfy section
10(b).
¶ 38 D. Circuit Court Proceedings
¶ 39 On February 15, 2022, plaintiff filed the complaint for a writ of certiorari against
defendants, seeking a judgment that he is entitled to benefits under the Act and an order that
defendants pay all health insurance premiums on his behalf in accordance with the statute.
Plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment on his claim. Following briefing and
argument, the circuit court denied the motion and entered judgment for defendants. The circuit
13 court’s order stated that it found “a sufficient basis in the record to support the hearing officer’s
decision.” 2 Plaintiff timely appealed.
¶ 40 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 41 In determining whether plaintiff is entitled to payment of his health insurance premiums
under the Act, we note initially that the parties agree that plaintiff was awarded a line-of-duty
disability pension and thus suffered a catastrophic injury as a matter of law under section 10(a)
of the statute. Id. ¶ 28. The determinative question is whether plaintiff established that this injury
occurred as the result of his response to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency under
section 10(b).
¶ 42 A. Standard of Review
¶ 43 Initially, the parties dispute the standard of review. Plaintiff contends that we should
apply a de novo standard of review. The Village counters that the proper standard of review is
whether the hearing officer’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 44 Plaintiff appeals from the circuit court’s order denying plaintiff’s summary judgment
motion and granting judgment for the defendants on plaintiff’s complaint for a writ of certiorari.
The standards of review under a common law writ of certiorari are essentially the same as the
standards under the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2008)).
Pedersen v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 2014 IL App (1st) 123402, ¶ 48. We review the final
decision of the administrative agency, not the decision of the circuit court. Id. The applicable
standard of review depends upon whether the question presented is one of law (subject to
de novo review), fact (subject to the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review), or a
The circuit court’s order further stated that “[j]udgment is entered for defendants on Counts I & 2
II.” However, as noted, Count II (the alternative claim for administrative review) already had been dismissed. 14 mixed question of fact and law (subject to the clearly-erroneous standard of review). Id. (citing
Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 210 (2008)).
¶ 45 This case does not involve a question of law like the issue of statutory construction
presented in Heelan—the meaning of “catastrophic injury” as used in section 10(a) of the Act.
Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, ¶ 18. Nor does this case involve a mixed question of law and fact like
the question presented in Pedersen—whether the circumstances of the plaintiff’s injury qualified
as a response to an “emergency” under section 10(b) of the Act, as defined by our supreme court.
Pedersen, 2014 IL App (1st) 123402, ¶¶ 51-52 (citing Gaffney v. Board of Trustees of the Orland
Park Fire Protection District, 2012 IL 110012, ¶ 64 (“[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of the
term ‘emergency’ in section 10(b) is an unforeseen circumstance involving imminent danger to a
person or property requiring an urgent response.”)). Here, the question is not whether the
circumstances of plaintiff’s injury satisfied the definition of “emergency.” Indeed, the emergency
nature of the dispatch to the accident on I-55 and the nonemergency nature of the routine
maintenance at the station were undisputed.
¶ 46 Rather, the question presented here is simply whether the evidence of record supported
the hearing officer’s determination as to whether plaintiff’s injury “occurred as the result of” his
response to an emergency under section 10(b). This is a question of fact subject to the manifest-
weight-of-the-evidence standard of review. See Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension
Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485, 504-05 (2007) (applying manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard in
reviewing whether the evidence supported a pension board’s ruling on line-of-duty disability
pension application); see also Vaughn v. City of Carbondale, 2016 IL 119181, ¶¶ 22-23
(applying manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard in reviewing the underlying factual issue of
whether the plaintiff was entitled to benefits under section 10 of the Act). A decision is against
15 the manifest weight of the evidence only when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary,
or not based on evidence or when an opposite conclusion is apparent. Vaughn, 2016 IL 119181,
¶ 23.
¶ 47 With these concepts in mind, we turn to the parties’ arguments.
¶ 48 B. Section 10(b)
¶ 49 Plaintiff’s central argument is that the hearing officer exceeded the scope of her authority
under section 10(b) of the Act by revisiting the cause of plaintiff’s injury. According to plaintiff,
the hearing officer’s role was limited to “tak[ing] the injury(s) that was determined to be
catastrophic by the Pension Fund and determine[ing] if that injury occurred during firefighter’s
response to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency.” In support, plaintiff quotes at
length from our supreme court’s decision in Heelan. A careful examination of the decision in
Heelan reflects that the decision does not support plaintiff’s position.
¶ 50 In Heelan, the village police officer slipped on ice and injured his right hip while
responding to an emergency call. Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, ¶¶ 4-5. The injury aggravated the
officer’s preexisting right hip osteoarthritis, treatment aggravated the same preexisting condition
in the left hip, and, ultimately, the officer had both hips replaced and was unable to return to
work. Id. ¶ 5. The pension board awarded the officer a line-of-duty disability pension. Id. ¶ 7.
The village subsequently sought a declaratory judgment that it was not required to pay the
officer’s health insurance premiums under the Act, disputing that the officer suffered a
catastrophic injury under section 10(a) but conceding that section 10(b) was satisfied. Id. ¶¶ 9,
11. The circuit court entered judgment for plaintiff, finding that he was entitled to benefits under
the Act. Id. ¶ 12. A divided panel of the appellate court affirmed. Id. ¶ 13 (citing Village of
Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2014 IL App (2d) 130823).
16 ¶ 51 In affirming the appellate court’s decision, the supreme court reiterated its holdings in
Nowak and Krohe that an award of a line-of-duty disability pension established a catastrophic
injury under section 10(a). Id. ¶ 27. Specifically, the supreme court concluded that,
“[b]ecause the legislature intended an injured public safety employee to be eligible for
benefits under section 10(a) of the Act whenever his or her injuries were sufficient to
qualify for a line-of-duty disability pension, the pension board’s award establishes as a
matter of law that the public safety employee suffered a catastrophic injury.” (Emphasis
in original.) Id. ¶ 25.
Thus, “ ‘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.’ ” Id. (quoting Heelan, 2014 IL App (2d) 130823, ¶ 26).
¶ 52 Rejecting the village’s argument that it was being collaterally estopped from litigating the
issue of whether the officer had suffered a catastrophic injury under section 10(a), the supreme
court explained that its analysis “does not involve collateral estoppel, but rather statutory
construction.” Id. ¶ 28. That is, the plaintiff’s “award of a line-of-duty disability pension
establishe[d] that he suffered a catastrophic injury as a matter of law.” (Emphasis in original.) Id.
The supreme court also rejected the village’s procedural due process argument, concluding that
there were no factual disputes left to litigate in the case, given its construction of section 10(a)
and the village’s concession that section 10(b) was satisfied. Id. ¶ 33.
¶ 53 On its face, the holding in Heelan is not dispositive here. Given the village’s concession
that section 10(b) had been satisfied there, the only issue in Heelan was whether plaintiff
suffered a catastrophic injury under section 10(a). Conversely, here, the Village conceded that
17 section 10(a) was satisfied but contested the additional requirement under section 10(b) of
whether the injury occurred as the result of plaintiff’s response to an emergency.
¶ 54 Moreover, under the rationale set forth in Heelan, the line-of-duty-disability pension that
plaintiff was awarded in this case merely established that plaintiff suffered a catastrophic injury
under section 10(a), not how the injury occurred. The question under section 10(a) is whether
plaintiff suffered a catastrophic injury, whereas the question under section 10(b) involves a
causation analysis—whether the injury occurred as the result of plaintiff’s response to an
emergency. Here, the hearing officer explicitly recognized that section 10(a) was satisfied and
proceeded to consider the additional requirement under section 10(b) of how the injury occurred.
¶ 55 We note initially that the Pension Board’s finding that plaintiff was injured from slipping
on the ice while responding to an emergency and from starting the chainsaw during routine
maintenance did not collaterally estop the Village from contesting in the Act proceeding whether
plaintiff suffered an injury while responding to an emergency. Application of collateral estoppel
requires, inter alia, that the issue decided in the prior adjudication be identical to the issue
presented in the suit in question. Oskroba v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 404 Ill. App. 3d 692,
696 (2010), abrogated on other grounds by Gaffney, 2012 IL 110012, ¶¶ 59, 64. The issue
decided by the Pension Board (whether plaintiff was injured in the performance of an act of duty
pursuant to section 4-110 of the Pension Code) is not the same issue decided by the hearing
officer (whether the injury occurred as the result of plaintiff’s response to what is reasonably
believed to be an emergency pursuant to section 10(b) of the Act). See Oskroba, 404 Ill. App. 3d
at 696-97 (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the pension board’s determination that he was
responding to an emergency when injured collaterally estopped the village from denying benefits
under the Act).
18 ¶ 56 Plaintiff asserts that he does not advocate application of collateral estoppel. Rather, his
position is that “section 10(a) was satisfied by the Pension Board’s award as a matter of law due
to statutory construction as determined by the Supreme Court.” This argument misses the point.
The question here was not whether section 10(a) was satisfied. The hearing officer explicitly
acknowledged that section 10(a) was satisfied. Plaintiff was awarded a line-of-duty disability
pension and thus suffered a catastrophic injury as a matter of law. 820 ILCS 320/10(a) (West
2020); Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, ¶ 28. The question for the hearing officer was whether
plaintiff’s injury occurred as the result of his response to an emergency under section 10(b).
¶ 57 Plaintiff, however, maintains that the hearing officer essentially revisited whether the
catastrophic injury occurred in finding that plaintiff’s injury resulted from attempting to start the
chainsaws and checking the heavy tools, and not from slipping on the ice during the emergency
call. A review of the hearing officer’s decision reflects otherwise. The hearing officer did not
revisit whether a catastrophic injury occurred. Rather, as discussed, the hearing officer’s analysis
revolved around how that injury occurred—a wholly appropriate consideration under section
¶ 58 The distinction between section 10(a) and section 10(b) was discussed in Cronin v.
Village of Skokie, 2019 IL App (1st) 181163, ¶ 35-37. The firefighter in Cronin was awarded a
line-of-duty disability pension and thereafter sought benefits from the village under the Act. Id.
¶¶ 3-8. In affirming the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in the firefighter’s favor, the
appellate court rejected the village’s argument that the firefighter’s injury occurred as the result
of his preexisting ascending aortic aneurysm (and not as the result of his response to a cardiac
arrest call). Id. ¶¶ 33-34, 40. Recognizing that receipt of a line-of-duty disability pension does
not automatically entitle the public safety employee to benefits under the Act, the appellate court
19 explained that “there may be factual issues regarding causation where the fact finder is looking
for the connection between the employee’s injury and one of the four specific scenarios listed in
section 10(b).” Id. ¶ 37. In such cases, the proper focus is on “whether a causal connection
satisfying the phrase ‘occurred as the result of’ has been shown.” Id.
¶ 59 Ultimately, the appellate court in Cronin concluded there were no 10(b) factual issues
presented there. Id. ¶¶ 37-40. In addition to the uncontested emergency nature of the cardiac-
arrest call, “there was evidence of only one work-related injury,” and the village offered
“absolutely no evidence that any other work-related incident could be the basis” for the
firefighter’s line-of-duty disability pension. Id. ¶¶ 38-39. This case, however, presents the very
situation contemplated and distinguished by Cronin, where there is evidence of more than one
work-related incident, thereby requiring an inquiry into the connection between the injury and
whether the injury occurred as the result of plaintiff’s response to an emergency under section
10(b). Accordingly, the hearing officer properly considered whether there was a causal
connection between plaintiff’s injury and the work-related incidents.
¶ 60 Having addressed plaintiff’s argument regarding the scope of the hearing officer’s
authority, we turn to whether the evidence of record supported the hearing officer’s
determination that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that his injury occurred as the
result of his response to an emergency, as required by section 10(b). The hearing officer found
that the evidence established that plaintiff’s injury was the result of pull-starting the chainsaws
and checking tools, and not the result of slipping on the ice while exiting the ambulance on I-55.
Having reviewed the record, we cannot say that this finding was unreasonable, arbitrary, or not
based on evidence or that the opposite conclusion is apparent.
20 ¶ 61 As noted by the hearing officer, there were no eyewitnesses to the slip on I-55 and no
corroborating evidence that plaintiff told a supervisor about the slip on the ice. We acknowledge
plaintiff’s testimony that his injury began after slipping on the ice during the emergency call and
that he reported the incident. However, the hearing officer discounted this testimony, noting that
there was minimal evidence regarding how plaintiff injured his back from slipping on the ice,
including, as the hearing officer queried: “How did he exit the ambulance? Which foot slipped?
Did he fall to the ground? Did he catch himself mid-fall? Was he injured from twisting? Did his
back hit anything? Did any part of his body hit anything?” Also, plaintiff admittedly did not
initially tell anyone about the slip when he returned to the fire station and proceeded to pull-start
chainsaws and check heavy equipment without mentioning the injury from slipping on the ice.
¶ 62 Moreover, none of the incident reports mention an injury from slipping on the ice on I-
55. Rather, the reports merely recount injury from pull-starting the chainsaws and moving tools.
Likewise, plaintiff’s medical records from Premier Occupational Health, with dates beginning
the week after the alleged date of injury, reflect that plaintiff reported only the chainsaw incident
as the description of his problem. Accordingly, applying the manifest weight of the evidence
standard of review, we cannot say it was unreasonable for the hearing officer to conclude that
plaintiff failed to establish that his injury occurred as the result of slipping on the ice.
¶ 63 Plaintiff suggests that the hearing officer failed to appreciate that an injury may have
more than one proximate cause and that plaintiff was thus not required to prove that the injury he
sustained while slipping on the ice on I-55 was the sole cause of his disability. See Richter v.
Village of Oak Brook, 2011 IL App (2d) 100114, ¶ 21 (holding that the plaintiff could recover
under the Act provided 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); accord Ivetic v.
21 Bensenville Fire Protection District No. 2, 2023 IL App (1st) 220879, ¶ 41-43. However, a
review of the hearing officer’s decision reflects otherwise. While the hearing officer’s initial
framing of the issue suggested the need to choose only one incident as the cause of the injury, the
entirety of the decision demonstrates that the hearing officer carefully reviewed the evidence and
simply found insufficient evidence that plaintiff’s injury occurred as the result of slipping on the
ice. For the reasons discussed, we cannot say that this finding was unreasonable, arbitrary, or not
based on evidence or that the opposite conclusion is apparent.
¶ 64 In sum, the hearing officer’s denial of plaintiff’s application for benefits under the Act
was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 65 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 66 We affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Will County, which upheld the hearing
officer’s decision.
¶ 67 Affirmed.
22 Thomsen v. Village of Bolingbrook, 2023 IL App (3d) 220365
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 22-MR-43; the Hon. John C. Anderson, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys Scott P. Moran, of Law Offices of Thomas W. Duda, of Palatine, for for appellant. Appellant:
Attorneys Cary A. Horvath and Amy E. Zale, of Odelson, Sterk, Murphey, for Frazier & McGrath, Ltd., of Evergreen Park, for appellees. Appellee: