christopher stafford in this case applied for a disability pension almost immediately before he was walked out the door and terminated said he chose to resign pursuant to an agreement the pension board after hearing much evidence considering thousands of pages of records multiple doctors opinions decided that mr stafford had only proved that he was entitled to a non duty disability band benefit under the illinois pension coat largely focusing on the issue of whether or not he had proved that his disability was caused by an active duty the board tonight line of duty benefits because his injury was largely caused by non police stressors today the part disagreement largely focuses on the issue of causation a question of fact under illinois supreme court standards as well as the rules of this court questions of fact are reviewed on the manifest weight of the evidence standard the court is obviously well aware of it having considered numerous pension cases in other cases but the manifest weight of the evidence standard and regardless of the standard adopted by the court the plaintiff mr stafford bears the burden of proof and under that burden for the plaintiff to appt prevail on appeal he must meet the same burden as an advocate trying to overcome a jury's verdict under the manifest weight of the evidence standard pursuant to the supreme court's ruling and marconi their only must be some competent evidence in the record in order for the pension board to prevail marcone distilled the issue before this court today even further stating that a single doctor in a psychiatric police disability case is enough for a pension board to deny a line of duty disability benefit in this case we come across a very similar facts to the facts presented to the supreme court in marconi dr ralph was the doctor relied upon by the pension board here out of the doctors they found him to be the most convincing they spent great time in their decision in order explaining why they found dr ruff convincing dr rep specifically found that officer stafford disability and i'll read from c one thousand five hundred and forty two of the record quote i do not believe that mr stafford if mentally disabled is disabled because of either a specific identifiable act of police work or the general nature of being a police officer that states pretty clearly here that the causation standard was not met the pension board is free to like a jury to evaluate the evidence put before it in this case they did so they evaluated the evidence they considered all of it and after considering the evidence they found dr refs report to be the most convincing therefore they held because it was not his disability was not caused by a specific identifiable act of police work as commanded by this the supreme court robbins and followed by this court in both coin and project or even the general nature of police work he found that neither occurred so before we even get to the legal standards and the variety of newer cases that have come out recently regarding the causation standard this is a factual question the factual question the pension board is the sole determiner of and as such the pension board when it weighed all of the evidence found d convincing found in his favor and just like the supreme court case in marconi found a single doctor to be convincing enough to make their decision and  that he talked about the reasons why he acts explained that it was based upon the additional information that he was provided after between his st and nd opinion which also a substantial amount of time had passed he was given additional work records he was given additional internal affairs investigation records he was given a variety of things and he talked about that and said that he changed his opinion based upon those a that additional information so when he was given additional information like any expert the opinion is based upon the information or given upon being given additional information he made a different conclusion so as such dr ruff was well within his rights to do that as he was the person who was examining him he's a board certified psychiatrist excellent in impeccable records and he was the only one that took into account the narcotics abuse by the plaintiff it was the only one that took into account a variety of other factors the pension board in its opinion found him to be the most thorough incredible doctor tuner and doctor  before the record was that the other doctors relied on there's some yes that that the record that was the other doctor raf dr tutor dr frank were all given the same records  a long time had passed more records became known of by the counsel for the pension board which point we gathered those records and shared all of them with all three examining physicians again at which point all of them issue and again i think that that highlights what is a clear question of fact is weighing that evidence and under marconi that question is left to the pension board and under the manifest weight of the evidence standard the pension board only has to point to some competent evidence mr carlson i'm sorry at some point i have lost the standard of review i don't know whether i've missed a case where there's been a change but the administrative procedure act which codify the common law said that if there was any evidence in the record that supported the board's decision we had to go with that decision  but manifest weight of the evidence requires some balancing of the end of the interest has that changed your honor i can only cite to marconi which is the most on point case in the most recent supreme court case which states that as long as there is some competent evidence in the record then under the manifest weight evidence of the evidence standard pointing to the administrative review law that was sufficient to be able to sustain the pension board stating that aggravation of a preexisting condition or cumulative effects or anything other than a single cause is enough or whether this court should stick with its reasoning that it applied and project regarding police cases or whether it should adopt the miller case which is which also would follows the this court's analysis and project and robbins or whether or not you should take the more recent st district case the mr ms only supplement the record with  regarding step sardo versus franklin park i think we get to that point that is a clearly erroneous standard that we would be arguing over because a baffling rescue to mix fact and law i am saying that we don't even get to that point because the factual under any of those standards as long as you point to one doctor that says no it's not caused by police work and that's what dr graf said dr raff said that this was not solely caused nor is it generally costs and that's enough for the pension board to avoid that analysis but if the court goes into that analysis certainly it's our position that the or should stick with its reasoning most recently that it articulated and project regarding police cases when it went into a detailed analysis talking about how its outcome would be different if project were not a fire case if it were a police case and also the way that it articulated itself and its  coin one the three hundred and forty seven elapse rd seven hundred and thirteen i only go through the process of making the citation there because there are two coin cases that this court has considered in that case they also said that aggravation of pre existing condition or that cumulative effects would not be sufficient to meet active duty under the pension code so if you look at prague nd quarter that this court has held cases that some of you were involved in deciding and also you look at miller from the st district as well as the case from the supreme court that started all this robins we believe that the established case law with the exception of the outlier sardo says that psychiatric disability cases must the plaintiff in order to prove their entitlement to a psychiatric disability case must prove that it was a sole and independent cause and i think when you get to that part of the analysis that would be a clear clearly erroneous standard that they would apply all there along to the right just to make sure that they can protect their their their their exposure to the health insurance when the opinions came out of these three doctors the kitchen board sought to supplement the record with documents that were already in their possession there was arguing that the original hearing concerning my client's disciplinary record the shooting that would he was involved in the treatment he was receiving was all in assault some months afterwards in this case i will tell all of you took years to get to fruition it's probably three or four years change of attorney just delay after delay after delay so all of these records for their they're all dated you could see the doctor if supplemental report making reference on his record for dated in two thousand and fourteen and in prior to his report of december st two thousand and fift he gave an opinion that said it is my opinion that mr stafford's condition of p s p t s d did not cause him to be totally unable to perform his duties as a police officer so even in a nd opinion i think kind of self serv hearing and i apologize for jumping around but you have all the briefs you have the records i'm sure you're familiar with them so i just want to highlight what i think is is important not to polls testify that the polls his he is correct in nothing hidden the board talks about in their decision and in their argument about the fact that maybe this incident happened maybe it didn't they didn't call any witnesses they didn't try to prove or disprove it but there's evidence of the record in the briefs in the doctor's reports that the time of the incident december th which was the which was the the causation you're the foundation of this is that they had witnesses that heard more than four shots and officer stafford had testified that he had discharges weapon four times in fear for his life a snowy night for chase having been a place officer myself for a number of years these things happen and some officers handling and some do not in officer standard officer stafford did not you have so you have the board now coming to you insane we have the ability to rely on all the doctors and the best doctor we can rely on is the one change his mind after we gave him simply disciplinary records that's the that was the crux of the supplemental transmission to the to all three doctors were all records of discipline and this is after the p t s d has been identified  diagnosed this is when other things were happening and to officer stafford and all of the other doctors simply said you know we got these records but our original opinion stand except for dr f and dr rest even qualifies the guy who changes his mind qualifies him sent by saying he still thinks this is not totally disabling him but we have to redo the converse which means that the p t s d still has partial i'm asking you to take the on one doctor that that didn't change his mind based upon disciplinary records the entire record supports the talk about him not be truthful but they say it's a facial issue or it's a body language he told the truth he was asked questions they may not have liked some of his answers but they were bluntly truth the issue that we don't have a nexus or in this because of this of this p t s d we do all of the doctors agree argument that was made by the board that well he function very well for a few years after this look at start up a decorated war veteran function for a number of years at the utmost highest levels the board never brought in his commendations for officer this cannot be a culmination of of of events or or effects that cause of disability has to be one particular incident where we do have that we also have other things occurring in this officers life and during that time that ca spiral even more downhill so if you read dr rest nd opinion which i can't i believe is is kind of self serving to this to the city as an intervener and it's not the opinion that i think anyone would want to rely on it's someone who has changed their mind based on mostly non medical supplemental information in the record so if we ha we have all of the records that were available the board offered no witnesses at at the hearing the officer testified that we had discharges four shots is done jammed it in the where the bad guy was he didn't know you know the the board relies heavily on miller and i think that there the startle case kind of takes away that argument i'll go back to dr paul's for minute as an uncompensated witness dr pulls his as was the only other witness that testified at this hearing so i think that you know when i'm running through these things i have all these things to say but then we come up here you may talk about a drug addiction but there's an end was in the record had any problems with the none of them raise the issue that there's a risk that this they might be might have an opioid addiction and he was treated for many injuries both duty and on duty related during the course of his life time and i think that's probably all i want to say because i'm getting you pardon me i am presenting to you what i think are the most poignant parts i think for the for the city to come in for the pension board to come in and say we're relying on dr  as a part absolutely absolutely the they base it on dr ref the evidence would clearly supports a duty related tension based upon this officer has been affected by the shooting incident was involved in and everyone diagnosed p t s d of this officer at the very beginning they continue to diagnose it to the doctors did not modify and even dr references amended opinion continues to say that the t t s t had some effect on the disability of this office so even he does not discount or or say that he was wrong completely he continues to sicily with it so yes or i believe that the decision was clearly against the and then officially of the evidence so are you saying the state of the police officer must establish that the disability is a result of a specific identifiable active duty unique to police work clarifying further you wrote in other words the stress alleged to be disabling must result entirely from a specific identifiable active duty that is unique to police work and that involves a special risk not confronted by members of the general public here at best officer stafford suffers from a condition that is in part caused by or a contributed to by the line of duty action however that is not the factual by the board the factual question reached by the board is that the finding made by the board i think is probably the easier way for me to say it it is that the complaint of incident was not a contributing factor to his upon at the beginning of his analysis mr was only invited you to engage in a pragmatic exercise and in less pragmatic is code for please reweigh the evidence throughout his argument counsel for the plaint ff made statements like i think dr ref is the weakest he also stated things like the i don't think it's an opinion anyone should rely on we agree that ms only would have voted differently if you were a pension fund trustee for the police pension board in crest hill but that's not the standard the references to the trial court are almost irrelevant for the court's purpose standard rapidity what is a from your perspective the standard for us is that it must be a sole and independent cause or more important than what i think your honor what you wrote is that in other words the stress alleged to be disabling must result entirely from a specific identifiable active duty that is unique to police work and then volves a special risk not confronted by members of the general public in other words you along with the st district in the miller case have the same approach and largely it was the same thing you wrote in corning one when you wrote that it was a constellation of factors or the accumulation of factors over career insufficient it must be a specific identifiable incident and what it where do we get that from we get that from the supreme court and robins and robins makes very clear it must be a specific identifiable incident for psychiatric disability cases so sardo i appreciate that mr ms oni was lately as when he said that it's new law that when these five pension fund trustees who are too active police officers one retired police officer and two appointed members of the city made this decision they did so in good faith and using the manifest weight of the evidence it is important note the pension board made this decision an independent body not the city dr ref was hired by the pension board through a blind rd intermediary they didn't pick this doctor by name or by reputation it was assigned randomly the city had no input on the selection of doctors they had no input other than the arguments they made at the contributed to by an active duty and therefore the court should affirm the pension board's decision because the pension board followed the rules and had more than sufficient evidence in the record to support its opinion