right side up mister yes good morning or good afternoon mr and well you can start as soon as you're ready all right thank you council this matter involves the manifest weight standard of review providing that if there is any competent evidence on the record to support the board's decision it must be sustain  physicians certification i'll get into a little bit later on the substance of those statutes however at the start i would say that the stance you have no ambiguity they are very clear as far as what the legislative intent is and the elements which must be proved the facts preliminary facts in this case i will not go into detail except to point out a couple of the paramount concerns and that is this was a contract for services police chief of police for four year contract starting on april th two thousand and eleven and ending on april th two thousand and fifteen prior to hire as chief of police for the city of great would the plaintiff in this matter served a will county deputy sheriff police officer for will county for twenty two years was a member and i am a retirement pension on october th two thousand and ten while i will  them treating physician dr dale ski certify him physically disabled to perform services as a police officer when he was at will county he sustained numerous injuries an incurred numerous surgeries and many of the body parts that all of the body parts alleged in the application in this matter were involved as far as injuries at during his time that will he filed his application on april twenty one two thousand and fifteen that was one week prior to the time is contract ended with the city of braidwood this is a little bit unusual in this case and that is because this is a contract for services which existed for four years as opposed to a general employment that usually the police officer has some discretion as to when he or she will retire  will county he was awarded a disability i should strike that he was provided a worker's compensation settlement representing forty two percent loss of the lower left extremity permanent disability cetera on the day he filed the application the board had found in this matter that the date that he filed his application on april two hundred and twelve thousand and fifteen and the date that his contract expire and fourteen point two which is an on duty disability provides in part as follows the police officer found to be physically or mentally disabled so as to render necessary suspension or retirement both of those elements disability and to render necessary suspension or retirement from service are crucial and they are both required in this particular matter section three dash one thousand one hundred and fifteen position certificate provides as follows a disability pension shall not be paid unless there is filed with the board search if it gets disability by three physicians that statute does not provide that a disability shall be paid if certified it says it shall not be paid i'm a certified but the legislature in its wisdom also provided in that statute another section and that is the board may require other evidence of disability and that's precisely what the board did i cited the maccie vs champagne cases touching on that particular issue so let's look at that other evidence the testimony ensuring light of testifying when hired by as a chief of police as a veteran police officer you know what your duties are he was asked to clarify that statement says a requires apprehension  negotiating stairs all the general do these required of a police officer these are the very same duties that his doctors certify he could not perform he testified i have never been declared disabled even when i left will county he repeatedly denied any knowledge of his own treating physicians medical report of october th two thousand and ten even though said medical was generated by his attorney's request and was the catalyst for providing the workers compensation settlement of forty two percent permanent loss of his leg he next testifies that i left will county for political reasons we look at dr monocles records june th twenty thousand one hundred and fifty two months after the employment contract expired the doctor states in his records his contract was not renewed there was an election he was planning on leaving anyway but again his contract was not renewed the doctor continues and this is important he performed full unrestricted duty when when bill rulon newly elected mayor took over but he reappointed me that was at the time about when his contract was expiring said he was reappointed dr coleman's letters pain management thousand and fifteen june three retire planning on travel working around the house august five two thousand and fifteen same thing we go back to july th of two thousand and fourteen in his notes he states he is planning on retiring and nine months we look at the boards of desertions those physicians were not provided with an adequate history by the applicant he provided to those positions as his duty these were far greater than what he was able to do when asked by dr dance are you required to perform police duties he says yes he wasn't he knew what his duties were when he was hired he knew what he could in could not do he says to doctor he says to dr samuel he tells him that he had no problems at lower left extremity prior to the occurrences at work dr samuel says the records say otherwise i submit that the physician's reports of two thousand and seventeen are not necessarily representative of two thousand and fifteen at the time his contract ended and i don't believe that there is really anyth physician's records that indicate that this gentleman was in fact disabled to the extent that he was not performing full service at the time the contracted entered full circuit court indicated in its order that the court rely or that the board that is relied entirely on credibility issues as far as the plaintiffs there is no question the board did rely to a great extent on that but those credibility issues go directly to the heart of this matter that is the elements that have to be proved what has to be proved here is that this gentleman was in fact disabled and prior to the time that his contract expired he was not providing full service for the department that has not been proven is not shown math it has not been representative by his burden of proof in this particular case the board submit said his ability to perform was no less diminished at the time his contract expired than have existed at the time he was hired we look at the records of dr watch of two thousand and nine august twenty three was with respect to this knee and laid lower extremity he had neede pain popping snapping lucky he can't walk fifty feet actually he had a full knee replacement during the time that he was hired as chief of police which actually resolved to an extent his function and reduced just came to an extent the board summits in this particular case that the only  which served to suspend his employment was the event of the contract expiring in april th two thousand and fifteen there was no disability which suspended or caused his retirement in this particular matter and the board is respectfully asking this court to sustain the board's decision and hold thank you thank you mr brown well any questions  rott i'm going to dispute a lot of counsel's factual statements you know our position is that the trial court's ruling should be affirmed in finding that the board's decision was against the manifest way to the evidence if you look at the board's decision the entire decision cherry picks isolated a couple of days of when he was his term was going to end now in the court upheld the the the off duty disability in that case so i think that that argument in here that the record cites do not support that proposition also missing from the words evaluation a neutral impartial decision in this case is the fact that if you review what the evidence that's looked at on the board decision you're not going to find any reference to the fact that each of the board physicians examined mr ciaran review the several one hundred pages of monaco records in all king of the conclusion think that that argument should be disregarded further the board's decision also doesn't really look at the fact and i think the trial court pointed this out redone within the context of his worker's compensation case i would point out that the poorness decision relies heavily on dr dorsey it's a letter to me which states that he cannot go resume his dut es as a patrol officer for the will county sheriff's department i would point out that that letter was written in october of two thousand and ten it was several months before he was hired at great wood and he continued to treat events occurred within this timeline and it shows that between the time that he saw dr dorsey in october two thousand and ten there is not a lot of treatment from the time that he was hired braidwood of april two thousand and eleven will point out that the job description that was put into evidence indicated that the chief's primary duty is administrative functions however as the trial court noted and i think as i noted there's still a requirement counsel took a nd bite of the apple from through the board physicians are trying to get them to change their opinion on the disability in the refutes the trial court need not of that as well frankly i think that thousand and fifteen i think that's also an torrent conneaut you know that there was also a lot of medical treatment that was involved after chief curate took over his points out he had a total left knee replacement and that the doctors following that knee replacement they are low kind that he was diagnosed and suffered from complex regional pain syndrome and that was st diagnosed i believe and the father of two thousand and twelve that diagnosis continued to be a case throughout all the medical records and again witnesses in addition to the three board physicians that found mr geraci be disabled and that's really the only question only and the only real question here is was mr gerard disabled at the time when he found the sample chase requirement suspension of service be other requirements of the other things that are needed well whether he was a police officer whether was a member of the fund those are not disputed he was a man he was a police officer and he was a member of the fund and there was no discussion at least at the hearing about other jobs that may have been available in the police department counsel for the board also makes reference to the contract and it was going to end  in i think it i think the evidence it's an open question of whether or not mr girard would have continued beyond four year terms it's certainly not enough evidence and certainly not on the record mr it will mix points  about some of the statements you made some of the treating physicians about whether mr chin rot retire or was working and i think that those should be taken for what they're worth their statements to a treating doctor when when the doctor comes of asking well what's going work in that last week after he filed his application i think the board's decision is against the manifest whether we do the other dense and i think that the trial court frankly who took a look timeline i think was was correct and showed that the board's decision was not did not have a substantial foundation and i think these two final points st the board's finding that the applicant was in the same condition that he was when he was hired in two thousand and eleven when he file is application two thousand and fifteen that certainly is against the because number one mr girard after he was hired underwent a complete left knee replacement all the doctors and all of the medical records that are in the record in this case all show and  subsequent to that new replacement that mr girard suffered complex regional pain syndrome they're required extensive use of opioid medications and painkillers and additional treatment the records are replete with mr geraci tempting to alleviate that was pain stimulators additional surgeries and so forth i was just that mr geraci mystical condition continue to assist because he was unable to keep up his duties that testimony is contained in the redirect of mr girard assume the record it brought back is jeopardy chief from the man's units brought him back from the field to come back into the apartment to assist i think that's just one more piece of evidence to show that mr girard was having trouble keeping up with his duties as police chief for the city agreed as a result of his deteriorating medical condition and i not even referencing the two incidents that he had while he was a great worry felony required a shoulder surgery and some of the other difficulties he had as well i'm just going with the fact that th knee replacement after he was hired and then he developed a complex regional pain syndrome that you cherry rated his condition until he had to file in april th team the geraci by the board counsel i make an objection that it almost appears that before the trial the hearing was going on that board counsel was advocating a position before the war had made this decision in  case i made an objection to that and there was a discussion about that and i would suggest to you that the decision in this case is adequate kadeem a position that mr gerard was not disabled it was not a decision of a neutral fact finder they didn't examine all of the elements and made an impartial decision as to whether or not mr john run needed whether or not he met the requirements to be disabled under the pension quote i would suggest that they were advocating positions that much very clear or not there's not really a discussion of the evidence in the board decision because you'll find no reference to the conclusions of the board examinations all finding that mr girard was disabled if you look at the board decision they don't talk about now board counsel here tries to minimize their impact but these are the board positions that were selected by the board the board physicians conducted their examinations they review all of the treatment records of physicians stated ringworm is a small town and has a small police department and that if a police chief if there's a situation that arises and the cheapest a couple of comments a counsel raised i submit that it's a burden of proof of the applicant to show not the board that he did not continue in full service for the department in the board found otherwise in that particular case that he did that it was up to the board as far as to obtain those medical records or those medical reports prior to the two thousand and seventeen several comments were made i would only submit that i don't believe some of these things were address during the administrative process and of course if they are not raised in the ministry process they're waived on review obviously if some of those things are a just during the administrative process the board would address those issues but with has to have a full complement of all medical records of the of the applicant before a position on an i am me will even read your review of those with that being said i again get back to the point that this general i knew exactly what his abilities were at the time that he was hired to suggest that his duties were something in an extensive than administrative job defies logic he knew that his restrictions were permanent his doctor said that they were permanent he could not be a police officer anymore so the board submits in this particular case that the statute very clearly requires you have to establish a disability  disabled and that that disability suspended you are retired from service not that the contractor retires you but that the disability to if he worked to the end of their contract and was not disabled before from perfor continued in for service he's not he is not does not qualify for entitlement under one hundred and fourteen dollars it's as simple as that the board determined that the evidence in this case was very competent and compelling and he turman that he did but you have to show your disabled you have to show that you didn't perform full service that was not done he worked full duty until the end of his contract he talks about whether it was rehired wh as what's what about the deputy chief that was brought in during the i don't believe that the record established that your honor that is far is from that standpoint to assist him on his duties and i believe that the clear evidence in the record including his including his testimony that was contrary to the to the record establishes the fact that he did continue in full service especially when you look at all the medical reports where his doctors actually stated that he worked until the end of his term thank you shirley so to finish up on this particular matter the board feels it's very clear that what this gentleman he knew that he would not qualify for another pension benefit he knew that with a four year term he couldn't qualify the only way to do that is through disability so he filed his application he continued to work full duty during that time and the board submits again that it was not a disability which rendered necessary a suspension or retirement from service it was the end of his contract and his contract was not renewed and he knew it would not be thank you and we  asking that this court sustain the board's decision and whoa thank you mr now well thank you we thank both of you for your arguments this afternoon will take them out of under advisement and will issue