Illinois Official Reports

Appellate Court

Wright v. Board of Trustees, State Universities Retirement System,

2014 IL App (4th) 130719

Appellate Court 

Caption

CHERYL WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES, STATE UNIVERSITIES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF 

ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee.

District & No. Fourth District

Docket No. 4-13-0719

Rule 23 Order filed

Rule 23 Order 

withdrawn

Opinion filed

April 29, 2014

May 22, 2014

May 22, 2014

Held

(Note: This syllabus 

constitutes no part of the 

opinion of the court but 

has been prepared by the 

Reporter of Decisions 

for the convenience of 

the reader.)

Where the State Universities Retirement System determined that 

plaintiff received disability benefits from the retirement system and a 

workers’ compensation award for the same disability covering the 

same period of time, the retirement system was entitled to offset the 

total amount of the workers’ compensation award, regardless of the 

actual date that the workers’ compensation award was paid.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County, No. 

12-MR-546; the Hon. Thomas J. Difanis, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.
- 2 -

Counsel on

Appeal

Gene A. Turk, Jr. (argued), of Law Office of Gene Turk, of 

Carbondale, for appellant.

John M. Sturmanis, of Thomas, Mamer & Haughey, LLP, and 

Michael B. Weinstein (argued), Special Assistant Attorney General, 

of State Universities Retirement System, both of Champaign, for 

appellee.

Panel JUSTICE POPE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Justices Holder White and Steigmann concurred in the judgment and 

opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 In July 2007, plaintiff, Cheryl Wright, was awarded disability benefits by the State 

Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) retroactive to December 23, 2006, based on 

a July 2006 disability date. In March 2011, SURS staff notified Wright by letter she owed 

$51,413.62 (after SURS withheld her February 2011 disability payment of $1,687.96) based 

on a workers’ compensation award she received. Wright sought administrative review.

¶ 2 In February 2012, the Claims Panel of SURS issued a written opinion upholding the SURS 

staff’s determination. In June 2012, the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of 

SURS (Executive Committee) issued a final administrative decision adopting the Claims 

Panel’s determination in its entirety. In July 2013, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the 

Executive Committee.

¶ 3 Wright appeals, asserting her workers’ compensation award was not paid until January 11, 

2011 (180 days after its July 15, 2010, approval), and, thus, the offset should apply only to 

SURS benefits received after that date, resulting in a $2,185.25 offset.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 In January 2007, Wright filed an application for disability benefits with SURS as the result 

of an on-the-job accident, noting a disability date of July 2006. In July 2007, SURS notified 

Wright by letter she would begin receiving $1,791.93-per-month disability benefits retroactive 

to December 23, 2006. The letter contained the following notice:

“If you qualify for benefits under any State or Federal Workers’ Compensation or 

Occupational Diseases Acts for any period for which disability benefits are payable by 

SURS, the disability benefit paid by SURS will be reduced by an amount equivalent to 

such Workers’ Compensation or Occupational Diseases payment.”

¶ 6 After being advised Wright received a $53,101.58 workers’ compensation settlement in 

case Nos. 07-WC-9038, 07-WC-10331, and 07-WC-10390 (after attorney fees, costs, and 
- 3 -

medical expenses had been subtracted), SURS staff sent Wright a letter in March 2011 

informing her it was “entitled to offset disability benefits when an employee receives benefits 

under the State Workers’ Compensation or Diseases Act.” The letter noted Wright’s temporary 

total disability (TTD) payments ended February 23, 2007. Thus, the SURS offset began 

February 24, 2007, and continued through her final permanent partial disability (PPD) 

payment on May 22, 2010, for a total of 168.50 weeks (38.88 months) at $1,365.78 per month, 

or a total offset of $53,101.58. We note the workers’ compensation settlement agreement states 

the PPD award is equal to 158.50 weeks, apparently a typographical error. SURS withheld 

Wright’s February 2011 disability payment ($1,687.96), leaving a balance of $51,413.62 owed 

to SURS.

¶ 7 Wright responded to SURS’s letter, asserting she was not responsible for the offset amount 

because her workers’ compensation settlement held her harmless for any subrogation. In April 

2011, SURS staff responded by letter notifying Wright the subrogation clause in her workers’

compensation settlement did not apply to the disability benefits she received from SURS and 

demanded payment. Wright petitioned for review before the SURS Claims Panel, asserting (1) 

the State of Illinois agreed to hold her harmless for any claim such as this and (2) her workers’

compensation award was limited to PPD and she received nothing for TTD for the time frame 

alleged by SURS.

¶ 8 In October 2011, a hearing was conducted before the Claims Panel, resulting in a February 

2012 written decision. At the hearing, according to the Claims Panel’s decision (the record 

does not contain a transcript of this hearing), counsel for Wright argued (1) the workers’

compensation offset should begin in September 2010, when the settlement contract was 

approved by the workers’ compensation arbitrator (the agreement was actually approved on 

July 15, 2010); or (2) alternatively, the offset should begin 180 days after the settlement was 

approved because that was when the settlement was actually paid. The Claims Panel noted as 

follows:

“It has long been established before the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission 

that permanent partial disability benefits begin to accrue immediately after the period 

of temporary total disability ends. Arbitration and Commission decisions before the 

Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission have historically ordered that permanent 

partial disability benefits begin to accrue the day following the point at which the 

claimant is no longer temporary totally disabled.”

The Claims Panel found SURS staff had properly calculated the $53,101.58 offset, noting “it is 

apparent that the claimant did receive duplicate payments of both SURS disability benefits and 

Illinois Workers’ Compensation permanent partial disability benefits covering the same dates, 

i.e., February 24, 2007[,] through February 28, 2011.” (Wright retired in February 2011 and 

began receiving retirement benefits, thus terminating her disability payments.) Because SURS 

did not pay Wright her February 2011 disability benefits, the amount of the offset was reduced 

to $51,413.62. While the decision incorrectly states Wright’s PPD benefits covered through 

February 28, 2011, in fact, based on SURS staff’s calculation, Wright’s PPD benefit period 

ended on May 22, 2010.

¶ 9 In June 2012, the Executive Committee issued a final administrative decision adopting the 

Claims Panel’s determination in its entirety. In July 2012, Wright filed a complaint for 

administrative review with the circuit court.
- 4 -

¶ 10 In July 2013, following a hearing on the matter, the circuit court affirmed the decision of 

the Executive Committee.

¶ 11 This appeal followed.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 On appeal, Wright asserts because her workers’ compensation award was not paid until 

January 11, 2011 (180 days after its July 15, 2010, approval), the offset should apply only to 

SURS benefits received after that date, resulting in a $2,185.25 offset.

¶ 14 A. Standard of Review

¶ 15 The Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 to 3-113 (West 2010)) applies to all 

proceedings for judicial review of the final administrative decisions of the Board of Trustees 

(Board) of SURS. 40 ILCS 5/15-188 (West 2010). We review the administrative agency’s 

decision rather than the judgment of the circuit court. Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police 

Pension Board, 225 Ill. 2d 497, 531, 870 N.E.2d 273, 292 (2006).

“The applicable standard of review–which determines the extent of deference 

afforded to the administrative agency’s decision–depends upon whether the question 

presented is a question of fact, a question of law, or a mixed question of law and fact. 

[Citations.] Rulings on questions of fact will be reversed only if against the manifest 

weight of the evidence. [Citation.] In contrast, questions of law are reviewed de novo

[citation], and a mixed question of law and fact is reviewed under the clearly erroneous 

standard [citations].” Id. at 532, 870 N.E.2d at 292-93.

¶ 16 The parties disagree on the appropriate standard of review in this case. Wright asserts 

because the question before us involves the interpretation of a statute, i.e., what “payable”

means, the de novo standard of review applies. SURS contends the primary question is a 

factual one, i.e., whether the record supports the Executive Committee’s application of the 

offset statute based on the factual determination Wright received workers’ compensation 

benefits during the same period she received SURS disability benefits. Because the resolution 

of this case turns on the meaning of the term “payable,” we review this issue de novo.

¶ 17 B. The Offset Period

¶ 18 Section 15-153.1(c) of the Illinois Pension Code provides, in part, as follows:

“In determining the monthly benefits payable under this Article, a deduction shall be 

made equivalent to any benefits payable to any employee under any State or Federal 

Worker’s Compensation or Occupational Diseases Acts for any period for which 

disability benefits are payable.” (Emphases added.) 40 ILCS 5/15-153.1(c) (West 

2010).

The workers’ compensation settlement provided as follows: “All parties agree that payment of 

the settlement is deferred until after 180 days from the approval date of this contract.” Based on 

this language, Wright asserts her workers’ compensation award did not become payable until 

January 11, 2011 (180 days after the July 15, 2010, approval of the award), and thus, the offset 

should apply only to SURS disability benefits received after that date. (We note the Claims 

Panel’s decision erroneously states the workers’ compensation settlement agreement was 
- 5 -

approved by the arbitrator in September 2010; it was actually approved in July 2010.) SURS 

disagrees, contending the actual date the payment was made is irrelevant.

¶ 19 “The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the 

legislature’s intent, and the plain language of the statute is the best indication of that intent.” 

People v. Martin, 2011 IL 109102, ¶ 21, 955 N.E.2d 1058. “We will not depart from the plain 

language of the statute by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that conflict 

with the express legislative intent.” People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89, 100, 789 N.E.2d 734, 741 

(2002).

¶ 20 Wright urges this court to interpret the term “payable” in the offset statute to mean the date 

the payment is actually received. However, such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of 

the statute, i.e., to prevent a SURS participant from receiving both SURS disability benefits 

and a workers’ compensation award for dates covering the same period of time. See Taylor v. 

State Universities Retirement System, 203 Ill. App. 3d 513, 522, 560 N.E.2d 893, 899 (1990) 

(“The purpose of [the offset statute] is to prevent SURS participants from obtaining double 

recoveries of disability benefits [citation] and to facilitate recoupment of SURS disability 

benefits to the extent a SURS participant is eligible for workers’ compensation or occupational 

diseases benefits for a period of time for which he or she received SURS benefits.”). Further, 

statutes are to be construed to avoid absurd results. People v. Hanna, 207 Ill. 2d 486, 498, 800 

N.E.2d 1201, 1207-08 (2003).

¶ 21 In almost any situation this court can envision, disability benefits will be paid long before a 

workers’ compensation award is issued. If this court were to interpret the offset statute as 

Wright suggests, SURS participants would need only delay actual receipt of any workers’

compensation award to avoid reimbursing SURS for any offset. Surely this was not the intent 

of the legislature. The actual date a workers’ compensation award is paid is irrelevant. What is 

relevant is whether the workers’ compensation award is being issued for the same period of 

time for which the SURS participant also received disability benefits.

¶ 22 In this case, Wright received SURS disability benefits retroactive to December 23, 2006, in 

the amount of $1,791.93 per month. On February 23, 2007, Wright’s TTD benefits expired.

Thus, it follows that any permanent partial disability Wright suffered was present the day after 

she was no longer temporarily totally disabled–either she was permanently partially disabled 

or she was not. The fact a PPD determination was not made until later is irrelevant. Based on 

the workers’ compensation settlement agreement, Wright agreed to a lump-sum settlement of 

$53,101.58 (after attorney fees, costs, and medical expenses had been subtracted), representing 

22.5% of each leg (48.375 weeks for each leg) and 17.5% for each hand (35.875 weeks per 

hand) for a total of 168.50 weeks. It is of no consequence the workers’ compensation 

settlement agreement was not approved by the arbitrator until July 15, 2010, or paid to Wright 

until January 11, 2011.

¶ 23 Wright cites National Manufacturing v. Industrial Comm’n, 331 Ill. App. 3d 1045, 1048, 

780 N.E.2d 703, 706 (2002), for the proposition PPD benefits do not accrue unless and until an 

arbitrator has entered an award. However, the issue in National Manufacturing was whether a 

penalty imposed under section 19(k) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/19(k) 

(West 1994)) against an employer for unreasonably withholding payment of TTD benefits 

should also apply to the PPD award–which was not entered until the time the penalty was 

imposed–as “ ‘the amount payable at the time of the award.’ ” National Manufacturing, 311 

Ill. App. 3d at 1047, 780 N.E.2d at 705. The court found the penalty should not have included 
- 6 -

PPD benefits because they had not “accrued” at the time of the penalty hearing. Id. at 1048, 

780 N.E.2d at 706. The National Manufacturing court used the term “accrue” to denote the 

payments that had been unreasonably withheld by the employer, which logically could not 

include the recently awarded PPD benefit. Here, however, we are not concerned with whether 

a penalty should be imposed on an employer for failing to pay a recently awarded PPD benefit.

Rather, the issue before us is whether a SURS participant is required to reimburse SURS for 

benefits she received for the same period of time her workers’ compensation award was also 

payable.

¶ 24 In this case, SURS determined Wright received both disability benefits from SURS and a 

workers’ compensation award covering the same period of time. Because Wright does not take 

issue with the formula SURS used to calculate the offset amount, and because we hold the 

actual date the workers’ compensation award was paid is irrelevant, SURS is entitled to an 

offset amount of $53,101.58. Because SURS already withheld $1,687.96, Wright must 

reimburse SURS $51,413.62.

¶ 25 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 26 For the reasons stated, we affirm the Executive Committee’s decision.

¶ 27 Affirmed.