SECOND DIVISION March 2, 2010

No. 1-09- 1283
TH OMAS KACZKA, ) A ppe al f rom ) th e C i

rc ui t Cou rt Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) o f Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) ) THE RETIREMENT BOARD O F THE ) No. 08 CH 16694 POLICEMEN’S ANNUITY A ND ) BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICA GO, )

) Ho no r ab le ) Mar t in S. Ag ra n, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge Presidin g.
JU STI CETH EIS de l i

v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Plai ntif f, Thom as Kac zka, appeal s f

rom the j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court co nf

irm in g a de ci si on b y the Reti rem en t Boa rd of the Pol i ce men ’s A nn ui ty an d B en ef i t Fu nd of the Ci ty of Ch i ca go ( th e B oard) , w

h i ch den i ed h i s a pp l i ca ti on f or a re i n sta tem en t of a wi dow er ’s

an n ui ty ben efi t under the Ill

in ois Pensi on Code (the Pension Code) (40 ILCS 5/5-101 et seq . (West Supp. 2007) ). On

appe al , pl ai

ntif f conten ds that: (1) h

i s wi dower’ s b enef

i ts were sub j ect to m andatory rein statement pursuant to section 5-147 of the Pens ion C ode (40 ILCS 5/5-147 (West Supp. 2007)); (2) the Board’s 1992 deci si on awardin g hi m a widower’s a

nnui ty was a f in al ad m i ni stra ti ve orde r not su bj ec t to modif

i ca ti on b ey ond the 35- da y ad m i ni stra ti ve rev i ew pe riod
un de r th e A dm i ni stra ti ve Revi ew La w (7 35 I LC S 5/3-1 03 (W es t 200 6)) ; ( 3) th e B oard ’s pri or1-09-1283

- 2 -

dec ision aw ar ding him a wido wer ’s annu ity was not void ; and ( 4) t he Bo ar d er re d in dismissing his claim that t he Bo ar d vio late d his rig ht t o e qua l pro t ect ion u nder feder al and s t at e law. Fo r t he f oll owi ng r eas ons, we af

f i rm the decision of

the B oard. BACK GROUND On Au gu st 22 , 19 92 , pla int iff mar r ied Ca r o le P
. Le wa nd o ws ki. At t he t ime o f t he ir
ma rriage, Carol e had b een a m em ber of the Ch

ic ago Police

Departmen

t for 11 years. On Sep t ember 3 , 1 992 , 1 2 da ys afte r t he marr iage, Car ole d ied. The re aft er , p laintiff applied fo r, and
wa s a wa rd ed , a wi dow er ’s an n ui ty b en ef i t un der A rti cl e 5 of th e P en si on Cod e. Il l . Rev . Sta

t. 1991, ch. 1081⁄2, par. 5-101 et seq . Thereaf ter, o n Novem

ber 26, 1999, plai

ntif f rem arried. In 2005, the Board suspen ded pla in tif f’ s ben efi ts based upon the then

-exi stin g provisi on in the Pensi on Code requiri

ng that widower’s annui

ty benef its be suspended upon the remarriage of the surviv in g spouse. 40 ILCS 5/ 5- 147 (Wes t 200 4) . P laintiff agre ed t o r efund t he o ver payment as a re sult of fund s he
errone ousl

y rece i ve d be tween 1999 a nd 2 005. Subsequen

tly, eff ective August 28, 2007, section 5-147 of the Pen si on Code was am

ended by Publi c Act 95-50 4 (Pub. Act 95-504, eff . August 28 , 2007, amen

din g 40 ILCS 5/5 -147 (West Sup p. 2 007 )). U

nd er th e n ew prov i si on, a w i dow er’ s a

nn ui ty i s n o l ong er s ub j ec t to term

i na ti on
o r s us pe nsio n du e t o re mar ria ge . B as ed up o n t his a mend ment , o n Oc t o ber 29 , 2 00 7, pla int iff appl i ed f or rei nstatem en t of h i s wi dower’ s an

nui ty. Afte r no t ice and an o ppo rt unit y to be hea rd , t he Bo ar d r ende re d it s de cision d enying the rei ns tate men t of a wi dow er’ s a

nn ui ty . The B oard

de term i ne d that p l ai

nti f f di d n ot qua l i f y f or1-09-1283

- 3 -

rein statement of a wi

dower’s ann

uity under the Pens ion C ode because at the tim e Carole di

ed, pl ai nti f f ha d b een m arr i ed to he r f or les s th an one yea r. U nd er th e then-ex i sti ng prov i si ons of Articl e 5 of the Pens ion C ode, a widower had “ no righ t” to a wi dower’s ann

uity “if the m arriage
occurre d l ess

than one y ear pr i or to the pol i cem

an ’sdeath .” Il

l . Rev . Stat. 1991, c

h. 10 81⁄2, par. 5-146( a). T herefore, t he Board co ncl uded as foll

ows:

“ i ) [P l ai n ti f f ] i s n ot en ti tl ed to an y cu rre n t an n ui ty b en ef i ts i n th at he doesnot q

ua l i f y asa p ers on e

nti tl ed to be ne f i ts b y rea son of h i s m ar riag e to [ Ca

rol e] ; an d i i ) s i n ce [p l ai n ti f f ] i s n ot en ti tl ed to bene f i ts ba sed on h i s m arriage to [Ca

role ], i t mu st f oll ow that the

re
are no b en ef i ts to “ res um e”an d a cc ordi ng l y , th e a ppl i ca ti on sub m i tted by [plai ntif f ] i s deni ed.” Pl ai ntif f then f i l ed a two-c ount com

pl ai nt f or adm i nistrati ve revi ew i n the ci rcui t court. Co unt I o f his amended co mplaint so ught judicial re view o f the Bo ar d’s d ecisio n denying t he rein statement of h

is widower’s a

nnui ty be nef it. In count II, plai

ntif f s ought damages un

der
sec t ion 1 983 of t he Civil Rights Act (4 2 U. S. C. §19 83 ( 200 6) ), and a rt icle I, sec t ion 2 of t he Il l i noi s Consti

tution (Ill . Cons t., art. I, §2), al

l egi ng a vi ola tion of e qual protecti on. The Board subse quently

fi le d a m ot ion to dis

mi ss count II of the am

ended com

pla in t pursuant to section 2- 615 of the Illi

nois Code of Ci

vi l Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2006)). On Jan uary 7, 20 09 , t he cir cu it co ur t gr an t ed t he Bo ar d’ s mo t io n t o dis miss co un t I I
. T he r ea ft er , t he cir cu it
cou rt enter ed a judgment o n count I, c onfirm ing the decision of the Bo ard d enyi ng plain tiff ’s appl i cation f or rei nstatem en t of a wi dower’ s an

nui ty b enef i t. Pl ai ntif f now a ppea l s.1-09-1283

- 4 -

AN AL YSIS The Board is

governed by

Articl e 5 of the Pens ion C ode, which governs the polic e pen sion f und f or ci tie s wi th a p opul ati on of

more than

500,00 0. 40 IL CS 5/5 -108 (W est 200 6). Pur su an t to se cti on 5 -22 8 (4 0 IL CS 5/5 -22 8 (W es t 200 6)) , j udi

ci al rev i ew of the Boa rd’ s dec i si

on is governed by

the Adm in is trat iv e Revi ew Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq . (We st 2006 )). A cc ordi ng l y , we rev i ew the de ci si on of the ad m i ni stra ti ve ag en cy rath er th an the de term i na ti on of the c i rcui t court. Wa

de v . Ci ty of North Ch

i cago Pol i ce Pe ns i on Boar

d , 226 Ill . 2d 485, 504 (20 07) . In

the se ca se s, th e a ppl i ca bl e s tan da rd of rev i ew depe nds u

pon whether th

e q ue sti on pres en ted i s one of f act or l aw or a m

i xe d que sti on of

f act an d l aw. Ma

rc oni v . C h i ca go H ei gh ts Pol i ce Pe ns i on Boar

d , 225 Ill . 2d 497, 532 (2006). Here, where the sal ie nt facts are un

dis puted and the l itigation turns on an

is sue of statuto ry cons

truct ion, wh

ic h i s a questi on of law, our review is de novo
. Ro se lle P o lice Pe nsio n B o ar d v
. Villa ge o f Ro se lle , 232 Ill . 2d 546, 552 (2009 ). The esse nt ial ques t ion r aised by this ap pea l is whet her plaint iff is ent itled t o r einst at ement of h i s wi dower’ s an

nui ty b enef i t unde r the re l ev an

t provi sions of

Arti cle 5 of the Pe ns i on Code
. Plaint iff initially asse rt s t hat t he Bo ar d er ro neo usly denied his app licatio n for re insta t ement beca use re insta t ement of his bene fits wa s manda t or y under t he amend ment t o s ect ion 5 -1 47 o f the Pensi on Code. 40 ILCS 5/5-147 (West Supp. 2007). That section provides, in pertinen t part , as foll ows: “[A] ny widow ’s annu ity t hat was pr eviou sly ter minated or sus pend ed * ** by
re aso n of r emarr iage s hall, up on a pplicat ion, be r esu med as of t he da t e o f the1-09-1283

- 5 -

appl i cation *** .” 40 IL CS 5/5 -147(a ) (We st Supp . 2007)
. Plaint iff co nt ends t hat t he us e o f the wo rd “shall” deno t es a clear expr essio n of leg islative int ent to im pose a mandatory

obl i gati on. Neve rt heless, it is also a fund ament al pr inciple of st at ut or y cons t ru ct ion t hat all pro visions of an en ac tmen t are to be vi ew ed asa w hol e a nd each prov i si on m us t be i nte rprete d i n l i gh t of other re l ev an

t secti ons of the statute. Ab

raham son v. Illi nois Departmen

t o f Profes si onal Re gul ati on , 15 3 I l l . 2d

76 , 91 (1 99 2) . Th

us , i n con si deri n g w h eth er pl ai n ti f f wa s e n ti tl ed to rei ns tate men t, th e B oard

wa s a l so r eq ui red to con si de r oth er rel

evan t se cti ons of the Pen si on Code. S ec ti on 5 -14 6 spe cif i cal l y addre ss esa w i dow er’ s ri gh t to an nu i ti es . A t the ti me of Carole’s death, t hat section pro vided in pertinen t par t as follows: “§ 5- 146 . Wives a nd wido ws no t ent itled t o a nnuit ies. T he fol l owin g wi ves or widows

hav e no ri ght to annu

i ty f rom the fu nd: ( a) A w ife o rwid o w, ** * o f a p o lice man wh o die s in
ser vice, if the mar riag e o ccu rr ed les s t han o ne year pr ior t o t he policem an’s death ***[.]” Ill . Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 1081⁄2, par. 5- 146(a ). Thus, where the m

arriage l asted les s than one y

ear prior to t he death of

the policem

an, a wi dower had “no right ” t o a n annuit y from t he fund . H er e, unfo rt unat ely, Car ole d ied 12 days a fte r t he
marr iage. Acco rd ingly, plaintiff had “no right ” t o a ny annuity and , t her efo re , no right t o a ny rei nstatem en t of b enef i ts un der s ection 5-1 47. 40 I LCS 5/5-14 7 (West Sup p. 2007 ). Plai ntif f argues that in ren

derin g its decision, the Board erro neousl y m odif ie d its origi

nal1-09-1283

- 6 -

1992 deci si on, whi ch h

ad origi nal ly awarded hi

m a widower’s a

nnui ty. Pl ai ntif f ci tes several

cases in support o f the proposition that t he Pen si on Code provides n o author ity

to the Board to conduct a reheari ng or modi fy

its decisi on after the expi ration of the 35-day

fi li ng period for revie

w under the A dm i nistrati ve Rev i ew L aw. Kosa

kow sk i v . B oard of

Tru ste es of th e C i ty of Ca l um en t Ci ty Po lice Pens ion Fu nd , 38 9 Ill. App. 3d 3 81 ( 200 9); Sol a v . Rosel l e Poli ce Pe

ns i on Boar

d , 34 2 I ll. App. 3d 2 27 ( 200 3); Ross l er v . Morton Grove Poli ce Pe ns i on Boar

d , 178 Ill . App. 3d 769 (1989 ). The se c ase s are

procedu ral l y and f actual l y di sti ngu i shab l e f rom th e pres en t appea l . In Kosakowski , So la

and Rossl er , the boards erroneously sought to rehear an

d modify a fi nal order gr ant ing t he plaint iff

s’ bene fits aft er eac h boa rd had s ubse que nt ly changed its int er pr et at ion o f the Pen sion Code
. Kosakowski , 38 9 Ill. App. 3d at 387 ; So la , 34 2 Ill. App. 3d at 231 ; Rossl er , 178 Ill. App . 3 d at 774 -7 5. Fo r e xample, in Kosakowski , the board had argued that despi te the 35- day r eview p er iod , u nder sec t ion 3 -1 44. 2 o f the Pens ion Co de, t he legislat ur e gr ant ed it t he authority to later deduct from f uture paym

ents any overpaym

ent due to mis

representation, f

raud or error, an

d the board argue d tha

t it h ad m i sca l cul ated th e am

ount of the p l ai ntif f ’spen sion. Kosakowski , 3 89 I ll. App. 3d a t 383 ; 40 ILC S 5 /3 -1 44. 2 ( West 200 6) . T he co ur t agr eed wit h t he boa rd i n pri nc i ple, b ut un de r th e f ac ts p res en

ted f oun d that the b oard ’s

ch an gei n i nte rpreta ti on of the Pe ns i on Code

di d not qua

l i f y as a n “ error” wi

thi n the m ean i ng of section 3-144 .2 of

the C ode. Kosakowski , 3 89 I ll. App. 3d a t 387 . T her efo re , t he co ur t held t hat unde r t he Administr at ive Revi ew La w, th e b oard l ac ke d j urisd

i cti on to rec ons i de r or m

odif y a f i na l ad m i ni stra ti ve de ci si on gran tin g a disab i li

ty p en sion af

ter the 3 5-day

revi ew pe

ri od provi ded f or under the

statute.1-09-1283

- 7 -

Kosakowski , 389 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 383-84. Unl ike Kosakowski , So la

and Rossl er , h er e, t he B o ar d is no t se ek ing t o re hea r o r mo dify the s ubs tanc e of i ts ori gi na l order i n w hi ch i t gran ted pl ai ntif f a wi dower’ s an

nui ty i n 19 92. Ra t he r , pla int iff’s be ne fit s w er e s ub se qu en t ly su sp en de d b y o pe r at io n o f law du e t o his remarri age pursuant to section 5-147 of the Pensi on Code as i

t t hen exi sted. 40 ILCS 5/5-147 (W es t 200 4). Th e on

l y i ss uebe f ore th e B oard i n th i s c as e i s a

rev i ew of pl ai nti f f ’s ne w a ppl i ca ti on
see ki ng a rei nstatem en t of a wi dower’ s an

nui ty b ase d upon

a f urthe r change i n the law i

n 20 07. T he Bo ar d w as no t au t ho r ize d t o r ein st at e h is w ido we r ’s an nu it y in 2 00 7 b ec au se it co rr ec t ly determi ned that under the Pen si on Code plai ntif f h ad “n o right” to benef

its an d, therefore, prospectivel

y the re was nothi

ng to “resum

e.” Ne xt, p l ai n ti f f con ten dsth at th e c i rc ui t cou rt e rre d i n gr an ti n g th e B oard’ s m

oti on to dism iss count II o f h

is com plai nt pursuant to section 2-615 o f the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2- 615 (West 200 6) . A se ct ion 2- 615 m otion to dis m i ss tes ts the l egal suf f i ci ency of the com

pl ai nt. Na pleton
v. Villa ge o f Hin sd ale , 2 29 I ll. 2d 2 96, 305 (2 008 ). On r eview, t he qu est ion is whe t her t he al l egati ons of the c omp l ai

nt, wh en construed i

n the l i ght m ost fa vorabl e to the pl

ai ntif f , are suf fi ci ent to est abl

is h a cause of action upon wh

ic h rel ie f m ay be gran ted. Na pleton , 229 Ill . 2d at 30 5. I llino is is a fa ct - ple ad ing jur isd ict io n, an d a pla int iff mus t alle ge fac t s s uffic ien t t o br ing his clai m wi thi n the ca use of a cti on as serted
. Na

pleton , 22 9 Il

l . 2d at 3 05. Con

cl us i ons of f ac t or law uns upp or t ed by any allega t ion o f spec ifi c fact s o n which t hese co nclusio ns re st ar e insufficient to with stan

d a m otion to dis m i ss. Pooh -Ba

h E nte rpr i se s, I nc . v . Cou

nty of Cook , 232 Ill . 2d 463, 473 (200 9). Our review of an ord er grant in

g a section 2-615 mot ion to dismi ss is de novo
.1-09-1283

- 8 -

Na pleton , 229 Il

l . 2d at 30 5. Plai ntif f es senti al ly

al le ges that the Board, t hrough i ts tr ustees, violated hi s righ t t o equal prote cti on u nd er f ed era l an d s tatel aw

be ca us e i t gra nte d 34 appl i ca ti ons f or re i ns tate men t of widow’s ben efi ts to in div idua ls si mi la rly si tuated t o him

. Plai ntif f m ai ntain s that he has suf f i ci en tly al l eged a “ class -of-on

e” e qual protecti on v

i ola tion
. To st at e a ca us e o f ac t io n un de r t his t heo ry, eit her und er fed er al o r s t at e la w, pla int iff
m ust al l ege th at he wastreated di

f f eren tly f rom others w

ho we re si m i l arl y si tuated an d tha t there i s n o rati onal ba si s f or the di f f eren ce i n trea tme nt. Vil la ge of Wi ll owbroo k v. Ol ech

, 528 U.S. 562 , 56 4, 1 45 L. Ed. 2d 1 060 , 10 63, 120 S. Ct . 10 73, 107 4 (2 000 ); In re A doption of

K.L.P. , 19 8 I ll. 2 d 4 48 , 46 6 ( 20 02 ) ( t he es se nt ial t es t o f eq ua l pr o t ec t io n is w he t he rt he go ve rnme nt de als with simil arly situat ed individuals in a simi lar manner wit hou t a rat ional basis); Jac obs on v. De pa r t men t o f Pu blic A id , 171 Ill . 2d 314, 322 (1996) (equal prot ection an al ys is is ide ntica l un der t he Unit ed S t at es a nd I lli

nois C ons t itu t ions) . H er e, plaint iff has no t pled a ny facts t o s upp or t t he
co nclusio n t hat t her e we re ot her s sit uat ed s imi larly to him. He d oe s no t allege t hat any of t he ot her 34 people

whose pens ions

were rein

stated had been

ma rried f or less than

one y ear when their spouses died. Accordingly , t he ci rcuit cou rt p rop erly

granted t he Board’s motion to dism iss
cou n t II o f th e a men de d c om pl ai n t. La stl y , pl ai n ti f f argu es th at th e c i rc ui t cou rt e rre d i n gr an ti n g th e B oard’ s m

oti on to
ex pun ge a d ocum en t in troduced b

y pl ai ntif f that wa s n

ot part of th e adm

i nistrati ve record. Spe cif i cal l y , pl ai nti f f i ntr oduc ed a l ette r f rom the Boa rd a s evi de nc e that the B oard

wa s a wa re of hi s r em arr i ag e a s of Ma rch 200 1 i n r es pon se to the Boa rd’ s f i nd i ng tha t i t did n ot l ea rn of1-09-1283

- 9 -

pl ai nti f f ’s rem arr i ag e u nti l Ma y 200 5. P l ai

nti f f arg ue s th at the docu

men t sh oul d have b een p art of the a dm i nistrati ve record a nd th e Board f ail ed to i nc l ude i t. Sec t ion 3- 110 of the Adm in is trat iv e Revi ew Law (735 IL CS 5/3 -110 (W

est 200 6)) pr ovid es t hat in any administra t ive review act ion, re view “shall ext end t o a ll quest ions o f law and f ac t pre sente d by

the en ti re rec ord b ef

ore th e c ourt. No ne

w or a ddi ti ona l ev i de nc e i n s upp ort of
o rin o pp o sit io n t o an y find ing , o r de r , de t er minat io n o rde cis io n o f t he ad minist r at ive ag en cy s ha ll be he ard b y the c ourt.” 735 IL CS 5/3 -110 (W est 200 6). Th e letter was not part of

the re cord bef ore t he Board. Moreover, even if i t should h ave b een m

ade a part of the record by the B oard, whet her t he Bo ar d wa s aw ar e o f his remar riag e in 200 1 wa s no t re levant t o t he issue s befo re t he Board or th e court on r

evi ew. A ccordi ngl y , we f i nd n o error. For all of the f orego in g reasons, we af

fi rm the j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court, whi

ch confirmed the Boa rd’s dec isi on t o de ny pl

aintif f’s appli cat ion for reinstat ement of a widow er’s
an nui ty. Af f i rmed. KARNEZIS, J., co ncurs. HOFFMAN, J., special

ly concurs.1-09-1283

- 10 -

JUSTICE HOFFMA

N, speci al ly

concurrin

g: I agree wit h t he r esu lt r eac hed by t he major ity in this ca se, and I find no ne ed t o r est at e t he f ac ts giv in g rise to this appeal as t he y a readeq

ua tel y sta ted i n th e m aj ori ty opi n i on . I w

ri te
se pa r at ely, h owev er , to s et f orth th e r ea son

s w h y I to o bel ie v e t hat t he Re t irement Bo ar d o f the Po li cemen’sA

n n ui ty an d B en ef i t F un d of th e C i ty of Chi cago (Board) prop erl

y de ni ed the appl i ca ti on of th e p l ai n ti f f , Th om as Kac zka, f

or re i n sta tem en t of a wi dow ’s

an n ui ty b en ef i t. The Boa rd h asthe pow er to a

uthori zethe pa y men t of an y an nu it y, pensi

on, or benef

it granted under arti cle 5 of

the Il l i noi s Pen sion Code (Code) (4 0 ILC S 5/5-1 01, et seq . (West 2008) , fo r mer ly I ll. Re v. Stat. 19 91, ch . 108 1/ 2, par. 5 -101, et seq .) Effe ctive Septembe

r 3, 1992, the Boar d awarded the pl ai

ntif f a wi dow’s ann

uity ben efi t pursuant to article 5 of the Code as a consequenc e of the dea th of his wi f e, Ca role Kaczka , a Ch

i cago pol i ce of f i cer. Howev er, at all tim es rel evan t, section 5-146 of the Code provided tha t t he wi dow of a police off ic er who dies in ser vice has no righ t to an an nu i ty i f the marr i ag e oc cu rre d l es s th an one yea r pr i or to t he po lice officer ’s de at h. Ill. Re v. S t at . 1 991 , c h. 108 1/2, par. 5- 146, now codifi ed at 40 ILCS 5/5-146(a) (West 2008). And, i t is un dis puted that t he pl

ai ntif f an d Carole K

ac zka h ad onl

y b een
ma rried 12 day

s bef ore she di ed. The Board has onl

y the power given

it by statut e, and an

y order wh ich it en t er s inexce ss

of that sta tutory pow er i s v oi d a nd may be atta cked at a ny ti me or i n a ny f orum , ei the r di rectl y or
co llat er ally. Bus iness & P ro fessio nal Peo ple fo r t he Pu blic Int er est v. Illinois Co mmerce C omm’n. , 136 Ill. 2d 1 92, 243 -44 , 55 5 N. E. 2d 6 93 ( 198 9); Ko sa ko ws ki v. Bo ar d o f Tr us t ee s o f t he Cit y of Cal ume t Po lice Pens ion Fu nd , 389 Ill . App. 3d 381, 383, 906 N.E. 2d 689 (2009 ). Cons eque ntl y , I1-09-1283

- 11 -

agree wi th th e B oard’ s a

rgum en t th at i ts o rd er aw ardi n g th e p l ai n ti f f a wi dow ’s

an n ui ty benefit in the fi rst in stance ex cee ded the power conf erred upon i t by statute an

d was , as a

cons eque nc e, v oid . It followsth en

th at th e B oard al so l

ac ke d th e statu tory au th ori ty to re i n sta te a ben ef

it t hat it had no authority to grant in

the fi rst ins tance. Howev er, even a ssu ming, for t he sa ke o f arg ument , t hat t he Board’s origi nal order awa rd ing t he pla int iff a w ido w’ s a nnu it y ben efit wa s vo ida ble , r at he rt ha n vo id, I wo uld st ill affir m t he cir cu it
cou rt ’s judg ment in t his case . S ect ion 5 -1 89 o f the Co de g ra nt s t he Bo ar d t he po wer t o s usp end any
an nu it y, pe nsio n, o rbe ne fit t ha t wa s g r an t ed as t he r es ult of an error. 40 ILCS 5/5-189 (We st 2008 ). In its order of Apri

l 2, 20 08, denyi

ng the plaintiff

’s application for a r esumption o f his widow’s
an n ui ty ben efi t, t he Board specifi

cally found that

th e a n n ui ty b en ef i t aw arde d to t he plaint iff

in the fi rst inst an ce wa s t he "r es ult o f a c ler ica l er r o r . " As wit h a ny fa ct ua l find ing o f an ad min ist r at iv e agency , that fin din g is hel d to be pr ima fac ie tru e and corr ect. 735 ILCS 5/ 3- 11 0 ( Wes t 20 08 ). If,
as t he Board has f

ound, the origin

al orde r award i ng the pl ai nti f f a w i dow ’s

an nu i ty wa s th e re sul t of
a clerical error, the Boar d had every ri ght under se ct io n 5- 18 9 o f the C ode to susp end an y f uture pa y men ts o f tha t an nu i ty be ne f i t, i nc l udi ng by mea ns of an orde r de ny i ng hi s a ppl i ca ti on f or
re insta t ement br

ough t pur su an t to se cti on 5 -14 7 of

the Code (40 ILCS 5/5-147 (West 2008); seealso Kosakowski , 38 9 I ll. A pp . 3d at 38 4- 85 ( int er pr et ing a s imilar st at ut o ry pr o visio n in a r t icle 3 o f the Code)).Fin ally, f

or th e re as on s stat ed by t he majo r it y, I als o be lieve t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t pr o pe r ly di sm i sse d coun

t II of th e pl

ai ntif f ’sam ended c omp l ai

nt.REPORTER OF DECISIONS - ILLI

NOIS APPEL LATE COURT

_________________________________________________________________

THOMAS KACZKA,

Pl aintif f-Ap pel lan t,
v. THE RET IRE MENT BO ARD O F THE PO LIC EMEN’ S ANNUI TY AND BE NEFI T FUN D OF THE

CITY O F CHIC AGO, Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ No. 1-09-1283 Appell ate Cour t of Il linois First Di str

ict, Second Division Filed: March 2, 2010

_________________________________________________________________

JUST ICETHE IS de liv er ed the opinio n of t he co urt . Karnezis, J. , concurs. Hoffman, J., specially concurs.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal f ro m the Cir cuit C our

t of C ook County Honor able Mar

tin S. Agra n, Judge Pr

esiding

_______________________________________________________________ __ For PLAINTIFF- Rich ard J. Puch alski APPELLANT: Laura J. Goodloe Law O ffice s of Ri cha rd J. Puch alski 111 W. Washington St. , Suite 751 Chicago, Illinois 60602 For DEFENDANT- David R. Kugler APPELLEE: The Retirement B oard of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago 221 N. LaSalle St., Room 1626 Chicago, Illinois 60601