## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

Goodm an v. Morton Grove Police Pension Board , 2012 IL App (1st) 111480

Appellate Court Caption J ASON G O O D M A N
, Pl a in ti f f

- A p p e ll e e , v

. M O RT O N G RO V E POL I CE PENSI ON B OARD, De fenda nt-Appellant.

District & N o. First District, Third Division Docke t No. 1-11-1480

Filed Fe bruar y 8, 2012

Held (Note : Thi s syl lab us

con s t it ute s no par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed b y the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) The t rial court’s decision reve rsing defe ndant police pension board’ s denial of plaintiff police office r’s application for a disability pension was

reve rsed by the appellate court an d the board’ s decision was aff irmed wher e the evidenc e in t h e re co rd, including the repor t prepa red by a functional capa city evaluator, indicated that althoug h plaintiff suffe red a knee injury from the perf

ormanc e of an act of duty
, he should be able to perf orm the duties of a police office r, and, there fore
, the board’ s decision was not ag ainst the manifest we ight of the evidenc e.

Dec ision Under
Review Appea l from the Circuit Court of Cook County
, No. 10-CH-51381; the Hon. Michae l B. Hy

man, J udg e, pre siding.

J udg ment Reverse d.Counsel on

Appea l Richard J

. Puchalski and L aura J

. Goodloe, both of Puchalski & Goodloe, of L iberty ville, for appe llant.

Adam J

. Scholl, of Donald W. Fohr man & Associates, Ltd., of Chicag o, for a ppellee.

Panel J USTI CE MURPHY de livered the judgme nt of the cour t, with opinion. Presiding J ustice Steele and J u s tice Salone concur red in the judgme nt and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 On October 22, 2006, plaintiff, J as o n Go o d m an , a p o l ice office r for the Villag e of M o rt o n Grove
, injured his left knee while conducting a traff ic stop. The injury required arthrosc opic surg ery in November 2006 and mi cr o fracture surg ery in 2007. Goodman continued to complain of pain and reduc ed function in his knee. On Fe bruar y 8, 2009, Goodm an fi l ed an application for disability pension with defe ndant Morton Grove Police Pension Boa

rd (B oard) pursuant to the I llinois Pension Code (40 I L CS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2008)). Following examination by phy sicians and a hearing on the matter, the Boa rd issued

a decision and order on November 8, 2010, denying plaintiff’s application for a line-of- duty disability pension (40 I L CS 5/3- 1 1 4

. 1 (W est 2008)) or not-in-duty disability pension (40 I L CS 5/ 3-114.2 (West 2008)) . ¶ 2 Pursuant to the Administrative Review L aw (735 I L C S 5 /3-101 et seq. (West 2008)), Goodman soug ht administrative revie w of the Boa rd’s decision and order in the circ uit court of Cook County

. Following the Board ’s answe r and briefing by the parties, the trial court

reve rsed the Boa

rd’s decision as ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e and rema nded the m atter for a hear ing on the causation of Goodman’s injury

. T h e Bo ar d issued an order indicating that Goodman’s disability resulted from an act of police duty

. On May 25, 2011, the trial court enter ed a final order reve rsing the Boa rd’s decis i o n as ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e. The Boa rd filed a notice of appea l that same day and argues that its decision was not ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e. For the following rea sons, we

reve rse the or der of

the trial cour

t and af firm the dec ision of the Boa rd.

¶ 3 I . BA CKGROUND ¶ 4 A. Goodman’ s Application for D isability Pension and Prehea

ringObjection ¶ 5 Goodman filed his application for cer tificate of disability with the Boa rd on Fe bruar

y 8, 2009, seeking place ment on the police pension roll under a disability pension. At the

co m m ence ment of the hear ing, counsel for Goodman objected to the inclusion of a

-2-September 2009 discrimination char g e made by Go o d ma n a g a in st the Boa

rd. Counsel argued that this char g e had no bear ing on the deter mination of Goodman’s disabili ty

. Counsel for the Boa rd asser ted that the claim went to Goodman’s cre dibilit y beca use he asser

ted that he had been denied p en s i o n benef its even though that had not occur red. The document was admitted over objection, with the hearing office r specific ally stating that the discrimination claim itself would not be considere d, but it would only be ref ere nced for the languag e of the complaint.

¶ 6 B. A dminist rative H earing ¶ 7 Go odman t estified at the hearing that he had been employed as a poli ce officer fo r t h e Villag e of Morton Grove since May 4, 1998. His duties as a p at ro l office r i ncluded traffic stops , s ec u ri t y chec ks, and premises chec ks. On October 22, 2006, he sustained his knee injury when he stepped in a cre vice in the paveme nt exit ing his squad car and his knee g ave out. Goodman notified his supervisor, who met him at t h e s cene, and was then taken to Lu t h er an Ge nera l Hospital. At the hospital, Goodman provided his medical history
, was examined and was ref

err ed to an orthopedic specia list. Goodman testified that he had injured his knee while in the Army requiring arthrosc opic surg ery in 1995. He returne d to duty and

rema ined i n the A rmy , until he was honorably discharg ed in 1998. Goodman testi fied that he did not have issues w ith the knee a g ain until his i njury on October

22, 2006. ¶ 8 Goodman was examined by the sp ec i al i st and g iven an MRI

. The MRI indicated that Goodman had suffe red a rupture of the anter ior cruc iate ligament and deg ener ative chang es in the medial compar

tment. On November 27, 2006, Drs. J ohn Lyon and Arif Ali perf ormed arthrosc opic surg ery on Goodman to rec onstruct his anter ior cruciate ligament. Following phy sical t hera

py , he returned to work but ex perie nced c ontinued pain and decre ased rang e

o f motion. He also had problems running
, using stairs, squatting or stooping, and ot h er activities requir ing him to bend his knee

. ¶ 9 Goodman testified that a second proce dure, microfr actur e surg ery , was completed by Dr. Ali. He ag ain underw ent phy sical thera py , but continued to h ave the same issues with his knee as befor e. On Dr. Ali’s rec ommendation, Goodman consulted Dr. J ames Br esch, who deter mined that the microfr actur e proce dure failed and rec ommended a third surg ery , either knee repla ceme nt or a cada veric t ra nsplant. Goodman testified that he was uncomforta ble with the se surg erie s as well as the number of sur g erie s he had a lrea dy underg one. On J une 27, 2008, Dr. Ali advised Goo d m an that he was at maxi mum rec overy and opined that he would not be able to return to work as a police office r. Goodman testified that he was not offe red light-duty

work a nd filed his application for disability

. ¶ 10 Go o d m an was questioned conce rning his application for disability pensio n wi t h t h e Veter an’s Administration in 2001. Goodman testified that this application was in response to his medical rec ords being lost and his conce rn that his knee injury and oral surg ery during his time with the Army be documented in the event of future complications. He was awa rded

a partial disability pension of 10% in Au gu s t 2007. In addition, Goodman testified that in September 2009, he fi l ed an Equal Employ ment Opportunity Commi ssion (EEOC) discrimination complaint ag ainst the Villag e of Morton Grove with the I llinois Depa rtment

-3-o f Hu m an R i g hts beca use he felt his application for disability pension was not being diligently considere d.

¶ 11 C. Medical and F unctional Capac ity Evaluation Reports ¶ 12 The Boa

rd soug ht documentation of Goodman’s d i s ab i l i t y p en s i on claim with the Vetera n ’ s A d mi n is tra tion throug h an administrative subpoena, but no response was rec eived. Pursuant to the Pension C o de (40 I L CS 5/3-115 (West 2008)), the Boa rd had Goodman examined by three doctors. Dr. Michae l J acke r revie wed Goodman’s rec ords, took a history from Goodman and examined him on November 16, 2009. He conclude d that Go o d m an sustained a left knee anter ior cruc iate l i gament injury and a medial femora l condyle osteochondra l injury in a work-r elated injury . He opined that Goodman was at a stationary point in progress without the further rec ommended surg ery and the outlook for rec overy and
return to employ

ment as a p o l i ce office r was “guarde d,” even with surg ery

. Dr. J acke r

rec ommended a functional capa city evalua tion (F CE) to deter

mine Goodman’s actua l level of maxim al func tion. ¶ 13 Dr. David Raab also provided an independe nt medical evaluation on April 19, 2010. Dr. Raab had conducte d a pre vious evaluation in 2008 and re viewed G oodman’s re cords f rom Dr

. Ali, as well as Dr. J acke r’s evaluation. Dr. Raab opined that Goodman was likel y disabled due to his knee injury of October 22, 2006, and not his injury or surg ery from 1995. He further opined that Goodman should be functional with reg ard to his ability to work, but

rec omme n d ed an FC E be completed to deter mine his ability to return to work as a police office r. ¶ 14 The third doctor to examine Goodman was Dr. Chadwick Podromos on April 26, 2010. Podromos ex amined Goodman a nd his medical re cords a

nd opined that the persistent pain

was likely due to the femora l condyle articula r car tilage lesion. Goodman had an MRI of his knee on Ma

y 26, 2010, as re commended by Dr. Podromos. ¶ 15 Goodman underw ent an FCE on J u n e 1
, 2 0 1 0

. T h e FC E ev al u at o r p ro v i ded a
compre hensive repor

t, finding that Goodman was compliant and passed 35 of 37 reliability criter ia. Whil e the testing did not measure Goodman’s running ability
, the evaluator opined that Goodman could perf orm at a med i u m p h y s ical demand level. Citi ng job description “Police Offic er I (DOT# 375.263.014)” from The Dictionary of Occ upational Titles (DOT)
, the evaluator concluded t h at Goodman shoul d be able to continue to perf orm his duties as a police of

fice r, with ce rtain limitations on l ifting a nd car rying. ¶ 16 Dr. Podromos examined Goodman the next day and revie wed his MRI
, althoug h he did
not revie w the FCE. Dr. Podromos identified eff usion in the knee with Goodman exhibi ting marke d pain with forc ed flexion and marked posterior medial joint line tender ness. Dr. Podromos’ assessment indicated that Goodman wa s disabled and could not function as a police off icer but that he could be e x pecte d to handle a se dentar y task rea sonably

well. ¶ 17 Dr. Raab revie wed the FCE and provided an addendum to his evaluation. Dr. Raab found the FCE to be va lid and adopted the opinion of the evaluator that Goodman could pe rfor m at the medium phy sical demand level. Since a police office r is classified as medium duty
, Dr. Raab agree d that Goodman should be able to continue to perf orm his duties as a police

-4-office r. Dr. Raab also noted that the Bo ard had questioned whether knowing Goodman

applied for disability with the Veter an’s Administration would chang e his opini o n t hat Goodman’s curr ent disability was unrelated to his prior knee injury

. He stated that he knew Goodman had surg ery but was unaware o f this prior dis ability claim and could provide an addendum if a

revie w of a dditional information would chang e his prior opinion.

¶ 18 D. Administrative Dec ision and Order ¶ 19 The Boa

rd issued its written decisi o n an d o rd er o n No v em b er 8
, 2 0 1 0 , denying Goodman’s application in its entirety

. The Boa rd highlighted that the only medical rec ords submitt ed by Goodman wer e Dr. Ali’s progn o s i s notes dated J une 27, 2008, roughly two
y ear s befor e the Boa

rd’s reque sted medical examinations. The Boa rd challeng ed Goodman’s

cre dibilit y based on his lack of cooper ation in failing to respond to the Boa rd’s administrative subpoena, stating that he misstated his phy sical condition to Drs. J acke r and Raab by stating he was having no pr oblems with his knee prior to the Oc tober 2006 injury when he had applied for a disability pension with the Veter an’s Administration, and that he claimed the B oard ha d denied his pension dis ability benef its in hi s EEOC claim when that obviously was not the c ase. ¶ 20 The Boa

rd noted that its decision did not rest solely on its deter mination of Goodman’ s

cre dibilit y

. The Boa

rd noted that while it found Goodman lacke d cre dibility , the denial of his disability application was supported by the administrative rec ord. Dr. Raab’s medical repor t and revie w of the FCE supported the conclusion that Goodman was not disa bled for police duty

. It also cited to Dr. J acke r’s conclusion that, while the return to service was “guarde d,” Goodman’s status c ould not be prope rly assessed w ithout an FCE. Acc ording ly , the B oard conclude d that Dr. J acke r would come to the same conclusion as Dr. Raab if he had revie wed the FCE. Fur

therm o re , wh ile Goodman took issue with some of the deter minations of the FCE, the Boa

rd noted that no evidenc e or case law was provided by Goodman to undermine the re sults of the FCE or the us e of it as reliable evidence. The Boa rd rejected Goodman’s claim he wa s disabled and did not re ach the issue of ca usation.

¶ 21 E. Administrative Review a nd Appea l ¶ 22 Goodman filed a c omplaint for administrative revie w in the circ uit court of Cook County

. The Boa rd filed i t s answe r and afte r briefing by the parties, the trial court reve rsed the Boa rd’s decision as ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e. The matter was rema nded
to the Boa

rd for a hear ing on the causation of Goodman’s injury

. The Boa rd issued an order indicating that if the circ uit court order wer e affi rm ed o n revie w, Goodman’s disability resulted from an act of police duty

. On May 25, 2011, the trial co u rt entered a final order

reve rsing the Board’ s decision as ag ainst the m anife st weight of t he evidence. T his appea l followed.

¶ 23 I I . ANALYSI S ¶ 24 In an act i o n u n d er t h e Ad m i n i s t ra tive Review L aw, fac tual deter minations by

an

-5-administrative ag ency are held t o b e p r i ma facie true and corr ect and will stand unless

contra ry to the manifest weight of the evidenc e. 735 I L CS 5/3-110 (West 2008); Amigo’s Inn, Inc. v. License Appeal Comm’n
, 354 I ll. App. 3d 959, 964 (2004). We revie w the decision of the ag ency , not the circ uit c ourt, and to f ind the ag ency ’s deter

mination a g ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e require s a finding that all rea sonable people would find that the opposite conclusion is clea rly appar ent. North Ave nue Properties, L.L.C

. v. Zoning Board of A

ppeals
, 312 I ll. App. 3d 182, 184 (2000). Howeve r, questions of law are subject
to de novo revie w. Enesco Corp. v. D oherty , 314 I ll. App. 3d 123, 131 (2000). ¶ 25 As the hearing office r is the fac t finder responsible for overse eing testimony , making

cre dibilit y deter

minations and assig ning weight to statements made by witnesses, we revie w the decision of the Boa

rd, not the circ uit c ourt. Ahmad v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago , 365 I ll. App. 3d 155, 162 (2006). In making this de termination, we do not we igh the evidenc e or substitut e our judgme nt f or that of the administrative ag ency

. Abrahamson v. Illinois D epartment of P rofessional Re

gulation
, 153 I ll. 2d 76, 88 ( 1992). Simply put, if there is evidenc e of rec ord th at s up p o rt s the ag ency ’s deter mination, it must be aff

irmed. Abrahamson , 153 I ll. 2d at 88. ¶ 26 A pl aintiff in an administ rative procee ding bear s the burden of proof, and if he fails to meet that burden, relief will be denied. Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board
, 225 I ll. 2d 497, 532 (2006) ( per curiam ). The I llinois Pension Code provides t hat a police office r is entitled to a disability pension if “as the result of sickness, acc ident or injury i n cu rr ed in or resulting from the perf ormanc e of an act of duty
, [he or she] is found to b e phy sically or mentally disabled for service in the police depar tment.” 4 0 I L CS 5/3-114.1 (West 2010). There is no argument that Goodman sustained an injury from the perf ormanc e of an act of duty or that he suffe red continued issues from that injury as all t hree of the examining doctors and the FCE evaluator identified. The issue is whether his injury rende red him disabled for ser

vice in the police depar

tment. ¶ 27 We first consider Goodman’s challeng e to the Boa rd’s cre dibilit y finding and his claim that this de monstrated the Boa rd’s bias ag ainst him. We find there is no evidenc e of rec ord
to support Goodman’s claim that the Boa rd was biased. Review of such a claim beg ins with the presumption that admini s t ra t ive officials are objective, fair and honest, and capable of fairly judging a controve rsy

. Turcol v. Pension Board of Trustees of Matteson Police Pension Fund
, 359 I ll. Ap p

. 3 d 795, 780 (2005). The plaintiff must prove that the officia ls had adjudg ed the f

acts a nd law of the casein advanc e of the hearing. Id. ¶ 28 Goodman does not prese nt any eviden ce t h at h i s p et i tion was adjudg ed prior to the hear ing beyond the Boa

rd’s discussion of his cre dibilit y and its ultimate ruling ag ainst him. Whil e we may agree with Goodman that the Boa rd’s relianc e o n t h e languag e in his discrimination complaint and Dr. R aa b ’s statement that he did not know Goodman had applied for disability with the Veter an’s Administration do form at least some basis for the Boa rd’s conclusion that Goodman lacke d cre dibilit y , this deter mination is not ne cessa

ry to resolve this matter. The Boa rd provided analy sis of sufficie nt fac tual evidenc e to support its conclusion and this appea l may be resolved by resolving whether the Boa rd’s decision is
ag ainst the manifest we ight of the evidenc e.

-6-¶ 29 The issue in this case is the Boa rd ’s co n s i d er at i o n an d reconciling of the opinions rende red by the three phy sicians and the FCE evaluator. Both Drs. Raab and J acke r opined that an FCE was require d to deter mine the extent of Goodman’s injury and his abilities. The FCE evaluator provided an ex tensive report and support for t h e co n clusion that Goodman should be able to perf

orm the duties of a police office r. The FCE repor t was revie wed by Dr. Raab, who a cce pted these f indings. ¶ 30 Certainly
, considering the initial examinations
, a co n t ra ry co n cl u sion is reasona ble; howeve r, b as ed o n the FCE and Dr. Raab’s revie w, it cannot be said that the opposite conclusion from that of the Boa rd is clea rly evident. Goodman points to the medical repor ts from Drs. Podromos and Ali to support his argument that the Boa rd’s decision is ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e. Howeve r, Dr. Podromos was without the benef it of the FCE and, as the Boa

rd notes, Dr. Ali’s observatio n s and evaluation wer e made over two y ear s

ear lier. The Boa

rd revie wed these repor

ts and place d more weight on the FCE repor t and Dr. Raab’s medical opinion following ex am i n at ion of Goodman and full revie w of all documents. ¶ 31 Goodman also argues that the FCE was defic ient for the failure to g aug e his ability to run and for following the DOT job descr iption for a police office r and not a descr iption furnished by the police depar

tment or village

. He argues without ref ere nce to any evidenc e that more p h y sical abilities are require d for police office rs than those listed in the job descri p t i o n utiliz ed in t h e FC E

. He asser ts that the Boa

rd cer tainly should have made the rea sonable infere nces ba sed on common knowledg e that this job description was insuff icient. ¶ 32 Howeve r, without evidence t o s up p o rt his burden of proof, whether Goodman finds it difficult to compre hend how the Boa rd could perc eive that he is able to perf orm as a police office r is not of import. He asser ts that the Boa

rd should be well acqua inted with the duties and phy sical re quirements of the position. W ithout evidence to counter the job description revie wed by the Boa

rd, this assumption actua lly works ag ainst Goodman. There is evidenc e of rec ord to suppor

t the Boa rd’s c onclusion and that is sufficie nt to find that its decision is
not ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e and should be aff irmed. Acc ording ly
, the judgme nt of the circ uit court is reve rsed.

¶ 33 I I I . CONCLUSI ON ¶ 34 For the fore g oing rea sons, the decision and order of t h e Bo ar d ar e aff irmed and the judgme nt of the trial cour t is rever sed.

¶ 35 Reverse d.

-7-