1 No. 3-- 06--0865

______________________________________________________________________________ File d October 5, 2007. IN THE A PPELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2007 ANDR EW RO SZAK, ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) fo rt he 21 st Ju dic ial C irc uit ) Ka nk ak ee Co un t y, I llino is Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) ) No. 06-MR-14 v. ) ) KA NKA KEE FIR EFIGHTERS’ ) PENSION BOARD, ) ) Honorable ) Ken

dal l O. W enzel ma n Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________

JU STI CECA

RT ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t:

______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant An

drew Roszack, a f

i ref i ghter-para

medi c em ploye d by

the K an kake e Fi re De pa rtm en t, f i l ed f or a l i ne of du ty dis abi li ty pursuan

t t o t he Il li nois Pensi on Code (40 ILCS 5/4-110 (West 200 6) ), wit h app ellee Kank akee Firefight er s’ P ensio n Bo ar d ( her einaft er t he Bo ar d) . T he Board den i ed h i s req ues t for di sabi

li ty an d applic ant appealed to t he ci rcuit court o f K

ankakee Co un t y. The circu it co ur t denied app licant’ s re que st for disability and a ffi rmed t he dec ision o f the Board. Applicant has no w ap pea led t he circ uit co ur t ’s r uling, c laimi ng t hat t he Boa

rd ’s de cisi on to denyhim disabil

ity was aga inst t he manifest w eight of t he evide nce. We re ver se t he de cision o f the circu it co ur t and r emand fo r fur t her pr oc eed ings in acc or danc e wit h t his op inion.2 FA CTS Applicant fi

le d hi s appl

ic ation f or disab il ity pay with the B oard o n Septemb er 10, 2004. Two h ea ri n gswereh el

d w i th regard to the ma

tt er, one on February

17, 200 5, and a co ncluding he ar ing on August 25, 2005. At the February 17 heari ng, appl ic ant was th e on

l y wi tn es s to take the stand. Appli cant te stifi

ed as foll ows. Applicant was em

pl oy ed as a f i re f i gh ter -p aram ed i c wi th t he Kank ake e Fire Dep ar t ment a t t he t ime of the i

nj ury. He h

ad been hi red by the departmen

t in Septem

ber 2000. Hi s duties i

ncl uded re spo nding to and m

itigatin g emergency

situations and fi

re insp ec t io ns an

d in vestigations. On Decem ber 2, 2 003 , wh

i l e on duty , h e re sp ond

ed to aca ll an d u po n a rr iva l fo un d a n e lde r ly fema le pat i en t, b etw een

30 0 a n d 4 00 pou

n ds , on th e f l oor. He an d h i s f em al e p ar tn er b eg an to li f t th e woman to pla ce h er on to the

stretch er, butasthe

y di d s o, th e w

he els g ot ca

ugh t an d b oun d up on a rug, causin

g the wheel

s not to lock i

nto place an

d properly

depl oy. They

had to juggle the woman and t ry and gent ly l

ow er her t o t he gr ou nd, which t hey did. At t his time ap plicant an d hi s partner experienced

so me p ain in t he ir

upper back s. B ack up w as c alled t o he lp t ra nspo rt t he wo man to t he hosp i tal , and app l i can

t then sough t me di cal attenti on f or hi s b ack. The followi

ng day , Decem ber 3, 2003, appli

cant was exam

in ed by Dr. J. Mich

ael Panuska, t he city’s o ccu pat ional hea lth/ wo rk er s’ co mpensa t ion d oc t or . I n Janua ry 2004 a ppl i can t saw D r. George Char uk, who gave hi m pai n m edi cation an d kep t hi m on l i f tin g li m i tations. Appl

ic ant then saw hi s f am il y doctor, Dr. Samue l De guzm an, i n March 2004 who referred h im t o Dr . Be nja min Goldbe rg. Dr. Gol

dbe rg rec omm

ended s urgery to applic ant as his best o pport uni ty f or get ting b etter and re tur n i n g to work. Sur gery was schedul ed three tim es between

April a nd A ugust 2004 but had to be repe ate dl

y postpon ed du e to in surance probl

em s wi th workers’ compens ation ref usi ng to pay3

f orthe su rge ry . Worke

rs ’ c om pe ns ati on f i na l l y au thor ize d the surg ery

an d i t wa s p erf

orm ed on Au gust 31 , 2004, b

y Dr. Gol dbe rg. Applicant testifi

ed that he had b een i

n pai n si nce the i nj ury h

appened an

d he el ected to get surgery so that he would h ave the ch ance t o c ome ba ck t o w or k. Afte r t he su rg er y, he w as st ill no better. At t he t ime o f t he h ea ring , h e ha d p ain u nde r h is left shoul der bla de , wh ich wa s a lwa ys pr es en t. If he wason h i s f eet f or along pe

riod of tim

e, the pain in creased. He co uld no t ra ise h is left arm ab ove h i s head. On cr os s-e xaminatio n by the B oa rd , a pplicant re ve al ed th at he wa s 2 5 ye ar s o ld. He st ill love d hi s j ob a nd di d n ot wa nt to q ui t. A s of the h eari ng d ate, he was

em ploye d asa ca

rdiopul monary re sus cita t ion, orCP R, i

n str uc tor a t Kan ka ke e C om m un i ty Coll ege on a part-t im

e basi s, a nonph ys ic al job. As of

that date, he w as not get ting worker s’ compensation pay men ts. A dispute t hen arose between app licant a nd t he Boa

rd as t o a pplicant ’s pr ese nt add re ss. The Bo ar d inqu ired as t o t he applicant’s cur re nt add re ss and t he ap plicant re spo nded t hat he did no t have a cur re nt address at that t ime but had b een

st aying with h is mother, si ster, and ot her f am il y m em bers. He l

is ted a post off

ic e box ad dr es s w he r e h e c o uld be co nt act ed. Afte r muc h co nfusion a nd bac k and for t h, wi th the Board per sist ingon wanti

ng to know where the ap pli cant was residing, applicant pro vided hi s mother ’s address. T he heari

ng was adjourned after some more questions. The hear ing

resu med on Au gust 25 , 2005. Since t he first hear ing, a pplicant had u nder go ne a ma gnetic resonance i

ma gin g, or MRI. T he f

irst wi tness cal le d in the sec on d he ari

ng was D r. Panuska. He t estifi

ed as foll ows. Dr. Panuska

fi rst describ ed what the MRI conducted on appl ic ant on May

17, 2005, reveal ed. Nam ely, it i

ndicated that t here ha

d been some surgi

cal repair. Dr. Panuska testi fi ed t hat whe n4

app licant first came t o s ee him imm ediat ely after t he incident in Dece mber 2 003 , he never fou nd any evi dence of a shoul der i

nj ury but, ra ther, d i agn osed h i m wi th a th oraci c strai n. Af ter t hat Panuska referred hi m to another doct or and lost track of the case. Panuska testi fi ed that applic ant seem

ed to have f ul l ra n ge of moti on at th e initial exa m, b

ut now, after surgery, the longer he goes wi thout reh ab i l i tation the w orse th e i

nj ury wil l get. Pa nu sk a a dmit t ed t ha t lift ing a h ea vy p at ien t co uld cause t he type of i

nj ury ex hi bi ted by applic ant. He al so a dmit t ed o n c r o ss - ex amina t io n t ha t t he t ho r ac ic area wh er e h e d i ag n ose d a pp l i ca n t’s strain on De cem

ber 2, 2003, als o covered the scapul a area, whi ch wa s th e shou l de r b l ad e. P an

us ka ad m i tted th at i t wa s n ot far fet ched t o be lieve tha t t he sho uld er bla de ha d b ee n inv o lve d fr o m t he init ial t ime w he n it co ver s t he sa me a r ea as t he t ho r ac ic area. Panuska

co nc lud ed by t es t ifying t ha t wh ile it wa s u nlik ely a pp lica nt ’s sho uld er inju ry co uld get 100% be t t er , he co uld i

m pr ov e ov er ti me wi th more th era py, but a t tha t momen t, ap pl i ca nt c oul d n ot do his job. Applicant was then ca

ll ed to t he stand to continue testify in g. Applic ant adm

itted that he h

ad not been doi

ng an y ph ys ic al therapy si nce the l atest MRI. He had last undergone phy si cal therapy in Decem ber 2004 but

had to sto p due to t he pai n. He tried to do so me

home rehabi li tation after

t he surgery, b ut stopped b eca

use the p ai n w as too grea

t. Appl ic ant descri

bed h is in jury as two distin

ct periods : i n j ur y to su r ge ry, an d s ur ge ry t o t he pr es en t . Be t we en his init ial i nju ry an d t he su r ge ry, he was not ha

vi ng th e ran ge of m otion probl ems he was

ex peri enci ng n ow. He wa s ab l e to get his arm abo ve his head (a lbeit p ainfully ). He a lways, ho weve r, had p er sist ent pa in unde r left sho ulder and li mi ted l i f tin g cap aci ty. R ehab i l i tation ef f orts made i

t worse. Af

ter the surgery, h

e had sev ere range of m otion probl ems wi th h i s lef t arm and sh oul der. T he Board then cross-exam in ed applic ant over the photo o f h im snorkelin g on vaca t ion i n5

2004 prior to the surg ery . The Board prod uc ed a p hoto of

appl i ca nt on va ca ti on, he ad out of water, app ear ingt o r aise his r ight han d. Appl ic ant argued that it was his righ t hand that was above

the water in the pho t o, not t he left . T he i ss ue wa s l ef t so mew h at u n re sol v ed an d th e p h oto was e

n tered i n to evi dence. T he B oard nex

t conf ronted a ppl i can t over h i s su rgery can cel l ati ons i n 20 04. The Board contended

t hat a nur se a t t he ho spit al wher e t he su rg er y was t o be performe d had wri tt en down that work ers’ compensation h

ad approved

the s urgery in June but that applicant did not ret urn t he nurse’s call b ecause h

e was out o f town and ca

ncel le d surgery due

t o his inabili

t y to find a ride . Ap plicant dis puted the nurse’s version, say in g that hi s lawy

er and wor kers’ co mpensa t ion nu rse wer e sa ying the surg ery was not approved. Applic ant noted that, up to the present day, the surgery b il l h as not been pai d by workers ’ com

pen sati on. The Bo ar d also cr os s-e xamined ap plicant on his inco me and ne t wo rt h. Af ter much back and for t h, app licant a dmitt ed he mad e, on average, depen

din g on how muc

h hi s part-t im e j ob required hi m to work, $1, 000 a m

onth. He has $10,000 i

n the b ank f

rom the sal

e of hi s house. At the hearin gs , v ari ous

ex h i b i ts prov i de d b y th e B oard a

n d a pp l i ca n t we read m i tted i n to evi dence. A mon g th e B oard’ s ex

h i b i ts were applic ant’s f

unctiona l c apaci ty eval uation of M arch

1, 2004, conducted at Rivers ide He althC ar e Clinic, which indica t ed t hat he wa s a p ot ent ially exce llent ca n di da te fo rr eh ab ilit at io n, bu t t ha t he did no t mag nify his symp t o ms an d g av e fu ll phy sical ef f ort dur ing the exam. Al so entered by the Board was a l etter fr o m Dr . Go ldb er g o n Ap r il 9, 200 4, not ing that an MRI rev

eal ed either a f

ull-t hicknes s o r ne ar -full-t hicknes s ro t at or cuff t ear , a nd t hat t he app licant h ad

two d ec i si on s: ei th er to li ve wi th the in jury (in whi ch case he i s at ma

xi mum me dic al i mpro vement and wi

ll li kel y n ot get better) or have surgery to repair the i

nj ury (i n wh ic h case he6

wo uld ne ed ex

tens i ve thera py , but a f ter si x m onths or so could poss i

bl y resu me b ei ng a f i rem an ). Gol dbe rg also com

men ted th at h e b el i ev ed appl i ca n t’s cu rre n t i n j uri es werere l ate d to t he ac cident on De cem

ber 2, 200 3. Al so i n cl uded wererepor

ts f rom th re e docto rsse l ec ted

b y th e B oard to review applicant’s case. The f

irst, by Dr. Terrence Moisan, dated Decemb er 15, 20 04 , st at ed t ha t ap plic an t sho uld be ab le to recover after the surgery . Moisan was also “per plexed as t o t he relationshi p of his shoul

der to t he wo rk injury” beca use t he sympt oms o f left infrasc apu lar p ain did no t see m to be r elat ed t o t he shoul der. Nev er

th el ess, whatev er th

e c au se of the i njury , ap pl i ca nt wasat the ti

me i nc ap ab l e of pe r fo r ming his dutiesas a f iref igh ter. T he second, b

y Dr. Joseph G. Thometz, dated Decemb er 16, 2004, fo un d t he ap plic an t ha d le ft sho uld er an d s ca pu lar pa in an d w as no t ca pa ble o f r et ur ning t o his jo b as a f iref igh ter. Furt her, the current me dic al condi tion was a resul

t o f h is work-relatedi

njury f rom Decem ber 2, 2 00 3, a

n d th at h i s c ur re n t ca us e of di sa b i l i ty was l i m i ted ra n ge of moti on an d s tre n gth f orthe le ft shoul

der. The third report, from Dr. Wi ll ia m C. Mal ik, dated Feb

ruary 4, 2005, f

ound that ap plic an t ’s cu rr en t med ica l co nd it io n w as a r es ult of the i nj ury suffer ed o n Dec ember 2 , 2 003 , a nd that he was

di sab l ed f

rom f ull duty as a f i ref i ghter due to the

f ail ed rotator cuf

f surg ery . The Board issue d

its d ecisio n on D ece mber 1 4, 200 5. The f oll owi ng “ Fi ndi ngs of F act” w ere ma de by the Board:

“Acco rd ing

to Dr. Panuska, there was n o ini tial evi dence of a shoulder

inju ry; his diagnos i s w asa s trai

n of the upp er b ac k. I t wa s a

l so D r. Pa nu ska’ s op i

ni on that at the tim e of the he arin

g, full r ec o ve ry o f Mr . Ro sz ak is d ifficu lt to predict f or t hree reasons:7 (1 ) lack of a ggr essive p os t -su rg er y rehabilita t ion; ( 2) t he len gt h o f t ime f

r o m t he su r ge ry; (3) pr esence of atro phy

of the muscl

es. Acco rd ingto Dr. Pan usk a, aft er his ini t ial examinatio n of t he ap plicant , he recomm ended ag gr es si v e r eh ab i l i tati v e trea tmen t, whi ch di d not occu

r. Dr. Panuska also t est ifi

ed t hat when he first examined t he appl i ca nt, he ha d f ul l ran geof mo t io n in t he left sho ulder . O n cr os s-e xaminatio n, Dr Panuska i ndicatedt ha t Mr . Ro sz ak did
n ot av ai l h i m se l f to rehabi li tative treatment an

d therapy i

n order to obtain m

axi mum r eh ab ilit at io n t o ef

fe ct r ec o ve ry. Af ter Dr . P anus ka t est ifi

ed, t he applic ant adm

itted that he only

tried phy si cal therapy on three occasions , but could not compl ete the physi cal t her apy se ssio ns. T he app licant further

testifi ed that hi s l ast physi cal

therapy sessi on was Decem

ber 9, 2004, about two mont hs aft er he filed his app licatio n for a disa bili t y pensio n. The app licant also indicat ed t hat he did no t begin anyr eh ab ilit at io n w it h a ph ysic al t he r ap ist at un t il t we lve t o eig ht ee n w ee ks af t er his sh o ul de rsu r ge ry. Mr. Ro sz ak st at ed t ha t he ca nno t lift his ar m above his sh o ul de ran d i s a lwa ys in great pain. Howeve

r, his phy si cal therapy re po rt sho wed t hat he to le rated t herapy and pai n rather wel

l. The evi dence i ntroduced at the hear in

g al so in dic ated that acc or ding to Mr. Ros za

k’ s ow n we b si te, [h]ewa s a

b l e to go sno rk eling in Cancu n, withouta probl em . Bo ar d E xhib it M s ho ws Mr . Ro sz ak wa ving t o t he ca mer a w hile sno r kelin g. Ho weve r, acc or ding t o t he ap plicant , he canno t ident ify himself i n t he picture.8 The Pen sion Boar

d sel ected Dr. Terr ence C. Moi san to conduct an indepe ndent medi

cal ex am i na tion (IME) in t his case. In h

is report , Dr. Moisan states that h e is p er

pl exed as to th e r el ati onshi p o f Rosza k’s shoul der i

nj ury to the work inju ry. Dr . M oi sa

n also i n di ca te d t hat t he ap plicant will i mpro ve su bst ant ially

if he wo uld continue

therapy wi

th hi s treat ing ph ys ic ia

n, Dr. Goldberg. Dr. Mois an in dic ated aft er r ev ie wing t he MRI t hat t her e wa s su rg ical suc ces s in tr eat ing t he inju ry. Dr. Moi san

al so stre ssed

in his l at est re po rt as t o t he impor t ance of t he app licant undergoin

g further phy

si cal thera py and work ha r de ning . Ac co r din g t o t his repor t, th e l ate st M RI wou l d n ot b e i n con siste n t wi th Ros za k’ s a b i l i ty to retur n to work.
*** In a sub se que

nt rep or t , Dr. Thometz st ates t hat the applican t’s latest MRI reportdid no t sho w evide nce o f a re cur re nt orre sidua l ro t at or cuff t ear . D esp ite t he la ck of obj ective fi

ndi ngs ab ove, Dr . T homet z indicat es t hat t he ca us e o f dis ab ilit y is li mi ted ra n ge of moti on an d s tre n gth

i n th e l ef t shoul der . T his subject ive det er minatio n is based upo n what t he ap plicant t old t his physician. The t hird p hysician co nduc t ing an MRI for the Pensi

on Board was Dr. Will

ia m Mal ik. Dr. Mali

k descri bes the appl

ic ant’s condi

tion as a f aile d r o t at o rcu ff s ur ge ry. In a s uppl em en tal repor t, Dr. Mali

k concl udes t hat Ro sza k su ffers fr om ‘t endino pat hy of the su pra sp i na tusten don withouta di scre

te tear i den tif i ed, surgi cal repai r noted.’ Dr. Mali k concl udes that Roszak is

perman ently dis abl ed. The m edi cal do cu men t at io n a dmit t ed int o ev ide nc e in t his c as e is in di spute9

as t o w hat Mr. Ro sza k’s p hysical co ndit ion is and what cau sed t he co ndit ion. The applic ant testif

ie d at the fi

rst hearin g that he was not bein

g al lowed to see his t re at ing

ph y si ci an be ca us e h i s b i l l s w ere

not b ei ng pai d a nd he has n ot be en ab le to see hi s treating ph

ys ic ia n si nce Jan uary of 2005. He als o clai

me d at the in

itial hear ingt ha t his su r ge ry wa s d en ied fo rnin e mo nt hs an d h e d o es no t kn o w w hy. Howev er, acc or ding to applic ant’s Exh ibit 2, the surgery

was can cel l ed b eca use Mr. Ros za k w asout of

town on vacation an

d he di d not return

the do cto r’s phone calls. Dur ingt he heari

ng, the appl

ic ant was evasi

ve an d at times refuse d to answer que st ions prof

f ered b y the B oard. Fo rex amp le, he init ially refuse d to giv

e a residence address, he ref

used to s tate what he is currently earni ng, and ref

used to answer que st ions a s t o his ne t wo rt h. Mr. Roszak testif

ie d tha t he i s i n c ons tan t pa i n, bu t ca nn ot an d hasnot seen any treat in g phys ici an f or months. Based up on t he applicant’s evas ive te st imony and l ack of can dor, the B oard conc l udes that the appl i can t was n ot a credi bl e wi tnes s.”

The Boa rd th en condu cted i

ts an al y si s of wh ethe r the a ppl i can t was d i sab l ed. Th

e Board fou nd that the applic ant was not dis abl ed. The Board conclude d that appli cant’s l ack of cr ed i b i l i ty ad ve r se ly impa ct ed his c laim

t hat he wa s disabled for a number of r eas ons . T he Bo ar d fo und he was evas ivei n a nsweri ng q ues tions ab out where he

l i ve d an d worked and what he

earn ed. Th e Board also bel ie ved t hat app licant mag nifi

ed his sympt oms. As evide nce o f this, it p oint ed t o his s nor keling vaca t ion, su

rge ry pos tpo nem ents, and failur e t o s ee a do ct or in mont hs. I t also believed t hat he10

exacerb ated his inju rie s by no t , a s D r. Pa nus ka su gg es t ed , s ee ing a do ct o r fo r mo nt hs aft er t he s urgeries. Alt ho ug h a pp lica nt bla med t his o n w o r ke r s’ co mp en sa t io n a nd af fo r da bilit y i ss ue s, th e Bo ar d d id no t find ap plic an t cr ed ible a nd po int ed t o his a ss et s inthe ban k. The Board also poin

ted to Dr . Pa

n us ka ’s testi mo ny regardin

g applic ant’s f

ull range of m

ot ion i n the Jan

uary 2004 exam i na ti on and the concl

us ion by Dr. Gol

dbe rg tha t the su rgery wassuc ces sf

ul . The Board concl uded that if

the in jury was as seri

ous as ap plic an t co nt en de d, he wo uld ha ve t ak en r ea so na ble me dic al steps to promote rec overy. Fi

na l l y , the B oard ci

ted m edi cal evi den ce to sup port its p os itio n, su ch as Dr . Pa nu sk a’ s J an ua ry 20 04 find ing s t ha t t he ap plic an t ha d fu ll ran geof mo t io n in h is a r m, Goldberg ’s pr oc lamatio n of su cce ssful su rg er y, and t he repor ts of t he Bo ar d- app oint ed e xamining physicians who concl

uded that the surg ery had repa i red the i nj ury . The Board als o discounted those sa me app oint ed p hysicians who determi ned that applic ant was stil l di sabl ed becaus e that was based on t heir su bject ivedetermi

nations of what the appl

ic ant, whom the Board decl ared not credibl

e, had t o ld t he m. In th e a l ter n ati v e, ev en i f i t were to concl

ude that appl

i can t was d i sab l ed, th e Board det er mine d

that appli

cant would still

not be enti

tled to disab il

ity because he h ad not take nth e reas onab l e step s to rehab i l i tate his sh oul der af ter surg ery . Fo llowing t he Bo ar d’s d ecisio n, ap pl ica nt ap pe ale d t o t he cir cu it co ur t o f Ka nk ak ee Co un t y. The c i rc ui t cou rt a f f i rm ed th e B oard’ s dec i si

on , a n d a pp l i ca n t n ow a pp ea l s to th i s c our

t. AN AL YSIS On appeal, appli

cant contends t hat t he de cision o f the Bo ar d de nying h i m di sa b i l i ty b en ef i ts was aga inst t he ma

nifes t weigh t o f the ev ide nce. In support of this

contention, appl

ic ant argues that al l of the medi cal opi ni on of rec ord i nd i ca ted he wa s d i sa bl ed f rom hi s duties a s a f

iref igh ter due to11

an in jury suf fered on the j ob and thus the Board’s de ci si on was wrong. The Board argues that there was medical evide nce s how ing t hat app licant w as no t disabled . Fu rt her , t he Board argues that even if appl i ca n t werede ter

m i n ed to b e d i sa b l ed , he w as

n ot en ti tl ed to dis abi li ty pay because he f ai le d to take reasonable steps to r em edy hi s condi tion asreq

ui red by the W orke rs ’ C om pe ns ati on Act (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq . (We st 2006 )). Wh en deci din g an appeal

from a j udgme

nt in an adm in is trat iv e review proceed in g, t he appe l l ate court rev i ewsthe a dm i nistrati ve agen cy ’sdeci sion, n ot the tri al

court’s deci sion. Harroun
v. Ad di son P oli

ce Pe ns i on Boar

d , 372 Il l .Ap p.3d 26 0, 261- 62, 865 N.E.2d 2 73, 275 (2007 ). “Rul in gs of l aw are revi

ewed de no vo , but the agency ’s f in din gs of fac t will be

uphel d unless [they are] agai nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce.” Harroun , 372 Ill .App.3d at 262, 865 N.E .2d at 275. An adm in is trat iv e agency ’s decisi on on a m ix ed que sti on of law and f

act wil l onl y b e reversed i f the decision wa s cl

earl y errone ous. Harroun , 372 Il l .Ap p.3d a t 262, 865 N.E.2d a

t 275. The Boa rd ’s de cisi on wi l l b e r ev er se d on l y i f i t wa s a gai n st t he m ani fes t we ight of t he evi dence. The

appl i can t has the b urden of provi ng th at he wasen titl ed to the d

i sab i l i ty p en sion. Eve

rt v. Boa rd of Tru ste esof

t he Fire fighte rs’ Pens ion Fu nd of the City of L ake Forest , 180 Ill .App.3d 656, 661, 536 N.E.2d 143, 146 ( 1989). “‘[A]n adm in istrative agency [’s] dec ision is ag ainst t he man if est weight of the evi

dence onl y i f the opposi

te conclusi

on is cl e arly evi dent.’” Thigp en v. Ret irement Boa rd of Fi rem an ’s A nn ui ty an d B en ef i t Fu nd of Chi cago , 317 Ill .App.3d 1010, 1017, 741 N.E.2d 276, 281 ( 2000). The reviewi ng court must not substitute its own j udgmen t f or t hat of t he ad m i n i strat iveag en

cy an d sh oul d a f f i rm th e a gen cy ’s de cisi on i f th e r ec ord

con tai n s e v i den ce to supp ort the a

gen cy ’sf i ndi ngs . Thigpen , 317 Ill .App.3d at 101 7, 741 N .E. 2d a t 281 . “ It i s n

ot sufficient that the

re ar e mere co nfli

ct s in the t est imony or t hat an o ppo site co nclusio n might be12

reasonabl e; since t he we ight of t he evide nce a nd t he cr edibility of t he witne sses ar e wit hin the pr ovi nce of the ag en

cy , ther e n ee d b e on l y som e c om pe ten t ev i den ce i n th e r ec ord

to s uppor

t i ts f i ndi ngs . Eve rt , 180 Ill .App.3d at 660, 536 N.E .2d at 146. The pr ovisio ns go ver ning firefight er s’ pe nsions must be liberally cons t ru ed in favo r o f the appl i ca n t. Thigpen , 317 Ill .App.3d at 1017, 741 N.E .2d at 281. I n order for an acti ve f irem an t o be entitled t o d ut y disabili

t y benefits, he must est ablish: (1 ) t hat he is disabled ; and ( 2) t ha t his di sa b i l i ty was cau sed by

an inju ry incu rr ed in

or resul tin g f rom a n act of d uty . 40 IL CS 5/6 -151 (W est 200 6); Thigpen , 317 Il

l .Ap p.3d a t 1017, 74 1 N.E.2d

at 281-8 2. Disab il ity i s defi ned as: “A condi tion of ph ys ic al or mental incapa city t o p er for m any as si gned duty or duti es i n the f i re se rvi ce.” 40 IL CS 5/6 -112 (W

est 200 6). An act of duty is def

in ed as: “Any act im posedon a n act ive fireman by the ordinan ces of a ci ty, or by rul

es orre gul ati

on s of i ts f i rede pa rtm en t, or any ac t pe r fo r med by an ac t ive fire man wh ile on dut y, havi ng f

or its di rect purpo se the sav in g of the l if e or pro perty of an

ot her pers on.” 4 0 ILC S 5/6-1 10 (W est 200 6). Furth er, when a f i ref i gh ter a ppl i esf orbe ne fit s, t he P en sio n C o de pr o vid es : “P r o o f o f dut y, occupational

dis ease, or o rdinary

disab il ity s hal l b e furni shed to t he Board by at least one licensed and practi ci ng phy sician appoi nted by the B oard.” 40

ILCS 5/6-15 3 (West 200 6). Bef ore gr ant ing a disa bili

t y benefit, t he Bo ar d mu st r ec eiv e p r o o f t ha t t he ap plic an t is dis abl ed f rom at least one phy

sician appoi nted by the B oard. Thigpen , 317 Ill .App.3d at 1018, 741 N.E.2d at 282.13

In t he i nstant ca se, therei s n

o di sputetha

t the i njury i n q ue sti on a ros e d uri ng the cou rs e of applicant’s act ivedut y as a fireman. He w as he lpinga 300- to 400-pound woman onto a stretcher aft er an eme r ge nc y ca ll

when he f el t a pain in hi s shoul der and ba

ck. Wha t is a t iss ue , ho we ve r , is whether that acciden

t caused hi

m to becom

e di sabl ed so as t o be elig ible for di sabi li ty be nef its un der the pensi on statut e. The Board’s anal

ys is in that regard is pr obl em

atic. Several

of the Board’s crucial

fi ndi ngs used to deny appli cant’s disab il

ity were agai

nst the mani

fest weigh t o f the evi

dence. We wil

l address each fi ndi ng i n turn. Fi rst, t he Board ci

tes what it bel

ie vesto b e a

pp l i ca n t’s cr ed i b i l i ty probl ems. In su ppor t of this contention, the Board li

sts four instances where it believ

es appli cant was bein

g less than truthful

and thus destro ye d hi s credi bi li ty wi th the Board. The f i rs t i n sta n ce ci ted b y th e B oard i s th

e a pp l i ca n t’s “ ev as i v en es s” i n re sp on di n g to que st ions abo ut wher e he lived, wher e he w or ked , w hat he ea rne d, and his c ur re nt net wo rt h. We find that t he appl

ic ant’s answers to t hose questi ons, whi le at tim es seem in gly evasi ve, do n ot i m pa ct on t he ap pl ica nt ’s ve r ac it y co nc er nin g h is in ju ry. We f

irst note that t hese i

ssueswere t angential

at best to the i ss uebe f ore th e B oard , n am

el y , wh ether a ppl i ca nt wasdi sa

bl ed f rom t he i nj ury . Wi th reg ard to his curren t address, the

fol l owin g exc han ge was had b etween

appl i can t and the B oard:

“MR. PUCHALSKI: Just one ot her que st ion. What is your cur re nt re sident address? THE WITNESS : As I said, I d on’ t have a p er man en t r es ide nt ad dr es s a t t his t ime. MR. PUCHAL SKI: Wel l, y ou have to be liv

in g somewh

ere.14 THE WIT NE SS : Well, I ’ve been s t aying with my mom and f am i l y mem bers and m y si ster. P.O. Box 1881, Kankakee, Ill in ois. MR. PUCHA

LSK I: Ok ay. Yo u d o n’t live in a P. O. Bo x. Wha t I’m as king yo uis , what is y

our resi den t addres s? Wh ere a re y ou resi di ng as we si t here t o da y? THE WITNE SS: I d on’t have a permanent address. MR. HARMO N: Whe re do you s leep a t ? THE W ITN ESS : I c an

sl ee p w i th m y mom or m y sister or m y f ri en dsormy nephews. MR. PUCHA

LS K I: O ka y , m y que sti on i s, as w e s i t he re tod ay , wh ere are y ou stayi ng? Wh ere are y ou li vi ng? Wh ere are y ou residi ng? THE WITNESS: And I j ust to ld yo u , I ’m r es idin g w it h fr ien ds an d fa mily mem bers. MR. PUCHA

LS K I: W el l , gi ve me the addr

es s is a l l I’ m as ki ng . I don’ t know wh y t his is su ch a b ig d ea l. THE WITNE SS: I don’t kn o w w hy it is ei ther. My addres s i s P.O. Box 1881, Ka nka kee, Il l i noi s. If you ne ed to wri

te me a l etter, that’ s wh

ere I c an get i t. MR. P UC HA LS KI : I s t he r e a r ea so n w hy you d on’ t wan t to t el l us wh ere you’re resi

din g? THE WI T NE SS : N o . I do n’t ha ve an y mo ne y co ming in ri ght n ow. I do n’t have money

to buy an apartm en t or a ny thin g li ke that . Wou ld y

ou like my

mom’s address? Is that what you’re aski

ng? MR. PUCH

AL SKI: I’m

ask i ng y ou wh ereyou areli

vi ng today as we s

peak. Wh ere did y ou get up and get dressed?15 TH E W ITN ESS : 5 01 Ston

ey Ri dg e C our t. MR . PUCH

A LS K I: 5 01 Ston

ey Ri dg e C our t. THE WITNESS: Valparai so, Indian a, 46385. MR . P UC HA LS KI : And t ha t wa s yo ur ab o de as o f t o da y? THE WITNE SS: That ’s m y m ot her’s address. MR. PUCHALSKI: Okay. But that ’s not wh at I ’m a sk ing yo u. And t he o nly rea son – you kno w, I t hink – and Co unse l, co rr ect me if I’m wro ng . Anytime I’ve ever tried one of these

casesi n c ourt and yo u as k so mebod y where t hey live, t hey give yo ut heir ad dr ess. And all I’m ask ing is, if you a re not livi

ng wi th y our m other, wh ere ar e yo u l ivin g? Did yo u w ak e u p t he r e t o da y? THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. MR. PUCH

AL SKI: Okay . So y

ouwere a t your m othe r’ s h ous e i n Val pa rai so, Indi ana. You sl ept there last ni ght and that’s wh

ere you l eft to co me

here? THE WITNE SS: Yes. MR. PUCHA

LSK I: Oka y . Al l ri ght. I h

av e nothi ng f urthe r.”

Wh at the exch

ange bet wee n t he Bo ar d and t he ap plicant demo nst ra t ed is t hat t he ap plicant was “b etw een

re si den ce s. ” H e h

ad sol d h i s h ous e a n d w as b oun ci n g a rou n d b etw ee n friends and fa mily. Herea

di l y prov i de d the B oard

wi th a pos t of f i cebox ad dr es s t o ge t in

to uch wi th hi m. W hen t he Bo ar d fin ally

nar ro wed do wn t he question, he readily pro vided them with h

is m ot her’s address. He had no “per manent resi dence” i n the traditional

sens e of the phras e. Still, thi s exch ange doe s n ot appear to ex hi bi t wi l l f ul obs tructi oni sm orev as i v en es s on th e a pp l i ca n t’s pa rt. R ath er , i t poi n ts more16

to con f us i on between the parti es as to what was bei ng asked. Applicant pr ovid ed a po st office bo x, and when the Board specifi ed what it wanted, he readil y provided h

is m ot her’s address. Ne xt, t he Bo ar d ar gue s t hat t he ap plicant ’s eva siveness in answe ring w her e he worked, what he ea rne d, an d w ha t his n et wo r t h w as da mag ed his cr ed ibilit y. A ga in, t his i nte rpreta ti on d oesnot ho ld up u nd er a cl ose exam i na ti on of the reco rd. I n al

l of these i

nstances, t he ap plic an t ev en t ua lly provided the B oard wi

th the an swe rs i t desi red. A s to whe

re app l i can

t curren tly worked, th

e Board does notci

te specif ic al ly how applic ant was evasi ve on thi s subj ect. He answered al l the B oar d’ s questions, re v ea

l i n g w h er e a n d f or w h om h e w orked . W

i th re ga rd to hi s in come, the applican

t at fi rst did n ot un ders tan d w h y th e B oard w an

ted to kno w ho w much mo ney he made. Afte r muc h back and f orth between appl

ic ant’s attor ney

and the Board, applic ant stated he did n ot know how m

uch m oney he ma de as he was a part-time

em ploy ee wi thn o se t o rgu ar an t ee d h o ur s p er mo nt h. E ve nt ua lly, app licant s t at ed he made a ro und $ 1, 000 , bu t aga in, i t wa s a n e sti mate on his p ar t as he ha d n o fullt ime r eg ula rjo b. T he Bo ar d t he n inq uir ed ab o ut ap plic an t ’s ne t wo r t h, an d a ft er so me in it ia l con f us i on and b ack a

n d f orth b etw een appl i ca n t, hi s atto rney, and the Board, appli cant stated his

net wor th was ar ou nd $1 5, 000 . Ap plicant ’s at t or ney at t imes que st ioned t he Bo ar d’s ne ed t o k no w applicant’s net wor th, which m ay h ave contributed t o applican t’s se eming r elu ctance to pro vi de definitive an swe

rs to the B oard’s

questions. W

ha t al l of these ex am pl es c i ted b y the B oard

a s adverse ly aff ec ti n g a pp l i ca n t’s cr ed i b i l i ty h av e i n com mon ar e th at th ey do n ot di re ctl y re l ate to applicant’s dis abi

li ty stem mi ng f rom the Dece mb er 2, 20 03, i njury. F urth

er, the Boa rd w asnot alw ays cl ear or direct in

convey in g to applic ant jus

t what it wa s t he Bo ar d w an t ed t o kn o w. Fin ally, in ever y circumst ance , t he ap plicant event ually did pr ovid e t he Bo ar d wit h an ans wer . We ca nn ot say that t hese examples cite d by t he Boa rd re su l ted i n da mag e to ap pl ica nt ’s cr ed ibilit y as t o his di sa bilit y.17

Second, with regard to appli cant’s credi

bi li ty, the Board cited wha

t it ter med the app li

cant’s

“ sy m ptom mag nific at io n.” As an ex amp le, t he Bo ar d c it es ap plic an t ’s t es t imo ny t ha t he wa s in co nst ant pai

n an d n eeded su r ge ry, ye t po st po ne d s ur ge ry t o go o n a sno r ke ling va ca t io n. T his is simp ly not sup po rt ed byan

y docum en t or testim ony i n the rec ord. Wh

at the recor d does show i s that app licant postpo ned surgery in May and Jun e 2004 du e to unce rtainty over whether wo rkers’ co mpensa t ion wo uld p ay for t he su rg er y. It app ear ed a pplicant was being t old by a nur se w or king wi th Dr. Goldberg that the surgery had b een approved, whi

le hi s atto rney

an d w orke rs ’ c om pe ns ati on nurse were

t elling him

it was n ot approved. Durin

g applic ant’s testim

ony, the Board i

tself ide ntif ie s t he sno rk eling

v ac ati on as h av i n g ta ken pl ac e i n Fe b ru ar y 20 04 . Acc ordi

n g to the medical records, Dr . Go ldb er g’ s fir st mee t ing wit h a pp lica nt wa s no t un t il Ap r il 9, 2004, a full tw o mo nt hs aft er t he sno rk eling

t rip. The re is no e vidence for t he Bo ar d’s a sser t ion t hat app licant cancel ed surgery

dates to go snor keli

ng. It appears t hat the Bo ard has conflated t he surgery cancel lations wit h t he sn orkel i ng tri p. The t hird a nd fo ur t h fact or s cit ed by t he Bo ar d in asse ssing applicant’s cr ed ibilit y we r e h is f ail ure to se e a

doc torfor mont hs while being in co nst ant pain and his delay in seek ing reh ab i l i tation after sur ger y. The Bo ar d co nt ends t hat if the injury we re as se rio us a s ap plicant maint ain s, he wo uld have taken reasonabl

e m edi cal steps to promote reco very . Applic ant ’s t es t im ony has re fut ed t he Boar d’s assertions . Fi

rst, applicant testif

ie d that he di d continue

therapy a

t ho me , doing v

arious exercises. Se con

d, h e w as re l uc tan t to continue

with the ph

ys ic al therapy when , in applic ant’s m

in d, it was not working an

d hi s condi

tion was n ot im provin g. Third , a nd mo st impor t ant , a pplicant stated that wo rk er s’ co mpensa t ion wo uld no t pay fo r t he r ehabilitat ion. The Bo ar d co nt ends t hat app licant could pay for the rehab il

itation outof hi s own funds. Appl ic ant al ready e stablis

hed, howeve

r, that18

his own net

worth wa s l i m i ted . Worke

rs ’ c om pe ns ati on, f rom his te st imony, sho uld have been p aying f ort he r ehabilitat ion. At t he t ime of t he hea ring, he wa s eng age d in l itiga t ion with his worke rs’ com pens ati on cla im o ve rpa ying his me dic al b il ls. We fi nd that these r espo nses to the Bo ard’s quest ionin

g do not det rimen

tally affect applicant’s cr ed ibilit y, a s his r eh ab ilit at io n w as ca us ing him in tense pai n, and once

workers’ compens at ion s topp ed pa y i n g th e b i l l s, h e d

i d n ot s pen d h

i s f i n i te resourc es on

f urthe r rehab i l i tation whi l e l i tig ati ng h i s worke rs’ com pen sati on cl ai m . Once the Board had

de t er mined t ha t ap plic an t lac ke d c r ed ibilit y, it us ed i ts d ete rm i n ati on to disco unt t he medica l op inions of D oc t or s Tho metz , Mo isan, and Mal ik. Dr. Mois an, i

n hi s Decem ber 15 , 20 04 , re

por t af ter ex am i n i n g a pp l i ca n t, was per plexed by the r elat ionship be t wee n t he shoulder i nj ury and the work in

jury , but noted t hat a sm

al l tear could h

ave occurred and m

asked the pai

n. He then wr ot e, “[w] hat ever t he ca use of t he left sho uld er inju ry, h e is cu rr en t ly im pai red for fi refi ghter ac ti vi ti esdue to pa i n l i m i ted el evati on a nd ex tern al rotati on of the shoulder.” In his Decem ber 16, 2004, re po rt , D r. Tho metz co nclude d t hat app licant wa s “n o t ca pa ble o f r et ur ning t o his j ob as a f i re fi ghter for the Kan

kakee Fi re Department” an

d that appl

i ca nt’ s “ cu rrent m edi cal con di ti on is a r es ult of hi s work related

i nj ury f rom 1 2/2/0 3 wh

i l e h e was l i f tin g a pa tie nt i n h i s duti es a s a f i re f i ghter.” Dr. Ma l i k on F ebruary

4, 2005, wro te, “I do beli eve that A n dr ew Ros za k i s d i sa b l ed f rom f ul l du ty as a fi refi gh t er for t he Ka nkak ee Fir e De par t ment” and t hat “the cur re nt medical co ndit ion is t he
r es ult of the descri

bed in jury that occurr ed i

n Decem ber of 2003.” The B oard, however, has dis counted these m

edi cal opini ons, because

“[t]he phy

si ci ans wh o determin

ed that Mr. Roszak is s t ill dis abl ed, based thei

r fi ndi ngs on wh

at the appli

cant told them

and on s ubj ecti ve determ i na tions. If t he applic ant was not trut hf ul wi th this Board, we can assum

e that he was not t ru t hful with t he Board’s exam

in in g phy si ci ans.”19

W i th regar d to me di cal

di agn osi s an d/or treatm

en t, d octo rs ha ve r elied in par t on t he subjec t iveco mplaints o f the ir pa t ients and ha ve been a llowed t o t est ify co ncer ningthose st atements. Wh en i t come s to treati

ng phy sician s, statemen

ts des cri bing medical hist or y, pa st or pr ese nt sym pto ms, pain, or sensa t ions a re admissible as a n e xcep t ion t o t he hea rsa y rule if made t o t he phy si ci an for purposes of m

edi cal dia gnosi s or tr eatmen

t. See Meleco sky v. M cCa rt hy Brothers Co. , 115 Ill .2d 209 , 21 4, 5 03 N .E.2 d 35 5, 3 57 ( 198 6); se e al so Grein ke v. Chi cago Ci ty Ry . Co. , 23 4 I ll. 564, 570 , 85 N.E . 32 7, 3 30 ( 190 8). Th e re as oni ng be hi nd thi s exc ep ti on

i s b as ed on th e a ss um ption that pa t ien t s t ell t he irdo ct o rt he irt rue co nd it io n o f w ell- be ing an d h av e n o mo t ive t o fa lsif y. Grein ke , 234 Ill . at 572, 85 N. E. at 33 0. Whe n it comes to exam in in g phy si ci ans, h owever, evidence of such statements are not admissi ble under th e hea rsa y excep t ion if made t o t he physician fo r t he purpo se of testif

yi ng. Melecosky , 115 Ill .2d at 214, 503 N.E .2d at 537 ; Grein ke , 234 Ill . at 571, 85 N.E. at 330. Here, appli cant’s stateme nts to t he v

arious ph ys ic i an s we re done f

or pu rpos esof
medi cal di agn osi s or treatm

en t. In the in stant case, the Board’s docto rs’ m edi cal opini ons and di agnoses have been

supported by t he other m

edi cal testi ng, e.g. t heir p hysical examinatio ns o f app licant a nd the re sul ts of th e MR I. The MRI reve al ed

the postsurgical

state o f appl

ic ant’s sh oulder, and al

l the doctors noted i

n l etters f rom Jun e 200 5 tha

t appl i can t woul d ne ed f

urthe r rehab i l i tation . Dr . Ma lik even

concl uded that app licant was per mane nt ly di sa bl ed . W e h ave al rea dy de term i ne d that the B oard ’s

as se ssmen

t of applicant’s credibil

ity was against the manif est w eight of t he evidence. Therefo re, the Bo ard’s disco unt ingof

th e docto rs ’ rep ortsb as ed on appl i ca n t’s su sp ec t cred

i b i l i ty wa s inerro r. T he Boar d’s de ci si on to dism i ss th e ob j ec ti v e f i n di n gsof i ts appoi nte d doc tors wasag ai

ns t the man i f es t we i gh t of the evi dence.20

Ne xt , t he Bo ar d t ur ns t o Dr . Go ldb er g’ s c laim that t he surgery was a success as proof that appl i can t was n o lon ger di sab l ed. We find this cha ra ct er izat ion by t he Bo ar d t o be in err or . At no pla ce in t he do cu men t at io n a ft er t he Au gu st 31 , 20 04 , su r ge ry do es Dr . Go ldb er g e xp licit ly re f er to t he surgery as a “s

uccess.” Further, Dr. Goldb erg’s Novem ber 2 004 rep ort of hi s p ostop era

ti on exam i na ti on of appl ic ant reveal

ed that appli

cant stil l h ad a long way t o g o be for e he co uld be fully recovered . The Boar d has m isch aract erized the use of the ter m “ success” as mea n i n g n o disa b i l i ty orth at D r. G ol db erg b el

i ev ed th e p ati en t to b e f ul l y h ea l ed . Th e ev i den ce

i n th e rec ord d

oesnot sup po rt t hat inter pr et at ion. Fin ally, the Board cites as m edi cal evi dence Dr. Panus

ka’s statemen

t from Jan uary 29, 2004, that app licant ha d fu ll ra ng e o f mo t io n in h is a r m as ev ide nc e o f no dis ab ilit y. T his is pr o ble mat ic on a co uple o f levels. Firs t , a t no p lace in t he r eco rd is the re any do cument at ion sho wi ng th at Dr. Panuska exam in ed applic ant on January

29, 200 4. In f

act, Dr. P anuska h

ad by that t im e referred app licant to Dr. Ch

aru k. Th e “ Fu nc ti on al C apaci

ty Eval uation Sum

ma ry Re port ” dated March 1, 2004, i ndi cates that ap pli can t was b ei ng s een by Dr. Georg e Ch

aru k from Janua ry 21 , 20 04 , to Feb ruary 10, 200 4, aft er being r efer re d by Dr. Pan uska . Furth

er, the re i s a “ W ork Sta tus Re por t” exam of appl ic ant signed

by Dr. Charuk dated January 28, 2004, along wi

th rehabi li tation servi

ces repor ts dated January

27, 2004, and January

30, 2004, f

rom th e Ri versi de M edi cal Cen ter, wi th Dr. Charuk l i sted a s the

attend i ng phy sician . The

re i s n o evi den ce i n the rec ord that appl

i can t saw D r. Pan uska between those d ates. The re i s a re cord of

a Dec em ber 2 9, 200 3, exam

in ation by Dr. Panuska that found that app licant ha d fu ll ra ng e o f mo t io n bu t pa in in his ex trem i ti es . Dr . Pa

nu ska’ s r ec ords

f rom that t im e, how ever , d o no t sho w t hat app licant wasnot di sab l ed. It should be rem

em bered that Dr. Panuska21

saw app licant in t he da

y s i m medi ate l y af ter th e acc i de nt. Healso adm

i tted on cros s- exam

i na ti on that t he t hor acic a re a whe re he diag nos ed a pplicant ’s st ra in on De cember 3, 200 3, also co ver ed t he scapula area, whi

ch was the shoulder blade. Panuska adm itted t hat it w as no t farfet ched t o be lieve that the shoulder blade had b een in volv ed from the in itial tim e when it co ver s t he sa me are a as t he t ho r ac ic area. Af

ter ref erri ng th e pati en t to Dr. Charuk, Dr. Pan

uska l ost track of

the c ase . Furth

er, t he me dic al

report from

January 5, 2004, indi

cated that applicant di d at that t ime ha ve f ul l ran geof
m otion , but that as the day

s we nt on, a ppl i can t beg an ex peri enci ng m ore pai n. Af ter exam in in g the record, and com

parin g the record with the f

in din gs of f act issued by the Board, we come to the conclusion that tho se f i nd i ng s r el i ed upon b y th e B oard i

n den y i n g di sa b i l i ty to applic ant were agai

nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev ide nce. We find t hat , ba sed on t he t est imony and do cument at ion in t he record, applic ant has ca rried h is burden an

d shown that he was

dis abl ed at t he tim e of the he arin

g as a r es ult of

th e D ec em

b er 2, 2 00 3, i n j ur y i n cu rre d i n th e c our se

of h i s d uty as a Ka nka kee f i ref i ghter. As we ha ve de t er mine d t ha t ap pl ica nt pr o pe r ly es t ab lish ed his di sa bilit y, we must t ur n t o t he Boar d’s argumen

t t hat applic ant is

stil l n ot entitled to disabi

li ty pay because he f ai le d to take
r ea so na ble steps to remedy his con di tion . In s upport of thi s contention, the Board argues that under t he W orker s’ Com

pen sa ti on A ct, failure t o u nder go re quir ed r ehabilitat ion ca n beco me a su per sed ing ca us e of disab il ity an d, t hus, it w as a pplicant ’s failure t o p ur sue re habilitat ion ag gr essively eno ugh, not the origi nal in jury , that caused his

disab il ity. A ppli cant cou nters t hat the Wor kers’ Com pe ns ati on Act does n ot appl y i n Pe ns i on Code

cas es. In the al ternative, appl

ic ant argues tha

t even i f the Pen si on Code all owed for loss of b enef

its f or refusal of m edi cal t r ea t men t t ha t wo ul d r es o lve t he di sa bilit y, that p enal ty would not be applicab le gi ven the i nstant facts.22

The t wo st at ut es a t issue a re t he Wo rk er s’ Co mpensa t ion Act (he re inafte r t he Act ) a nd t he Ill in ois Pensi on Code ( herein

after the Co de). T he relev ant po rtion of the Act st ates: “I f an y emp lo yee sha ll

persi st in in sani tary or in juri ous practices wh

ic h t end to either im

peril or r etard hi s recovery or shall refuse to submit to su ch m edi cal , su r gic al, o rho sp it al t r ea t men t as is r ea so na bly es se n ti al to prom ote his rec ove ry, t he Co mmi ssio n may, in its d iscre t ion, re duc e o r su spe ndthe compensation of any such em ploye e.” 82 0 ILC S 305/ 19(d) (W est 200 6). The re i s n o com parabl e provi sion i

n the Code . Il l i n oi s c our ts h av e dea l t wi th issues of r ehabilitat ion and claims fi led und er t he Act and t he Code. Two early

caseswe r e fr o m t he I llino is S up r eme Court, Joli et Motor Co. v. In dustri al Board of I llino is , 280 Il

l . 148, 11 7 N.E. 423 (1 917 ), and Mt. Oli ve Coal Co. v. Indust rial Comm ’n , 29 5 I ll. 429, 129 N. E. 103 (1 920 ). In Joli et , a wo rk er who injured his eye in the co ur se o f his wor k so ught work ers’ com

pe ns ati on. A l thou gh doc tor s re co mmend ed o pe r at io n w it h a 75 % ch an ce o f full recovery, the em

ploye e ref use d sur gery . Joli et , 280 Ill . at 149-50, 117 N.E. at 424. Ou rsu pr eme courth el d th e r ef us al of med i ca l tre atm en t c on sti tu ted the so le opera tive cause o f the claim ant’s co ndit ion, so c l ai

man t wa s n ot en titl ed to com pen sati on. Joli et , 280 Ill . at 151, 117 N. E. at 424. In Mt. Olive , an em

ploy ee who broke his arm

during w ork r efu se d t o un de r go a s afe an d s imple procedu re that woul

d ha ve corrected

the probl em . Mt . O live , 2 95 Ill . at 430-31, 129 N.E. at 104. The supr em e court held tha

t the ac ciden

t enti tle d the em ploye e to an a

ward of te mporary

to tal di sa b i l i ty under the A ct, bu t that the p erm

anen t di sabi l i ty a ward to the employee was in

erro r, because t he perm an en t disa b i l i ty re sult ed fr om his r efusa l to submit t o t he o per at ion as op po sed t o t he origi nal acc i den t. Mt . O live , 295 Il

l . at 433, 1 29 N.E. a

t 105.23

The in terpret ation of the A

ct from the Mt . O live

and Joli et ca se s w as

appl i ed b y an appe l l ate courtt o t he Co de in Mul

ack v . Hickory

Hil l s Pol i ce Pe ns i on Boar

d , 252 Ill .App.3d

1063, 625 N.E.2d 259 (1 993 ). In Mul ack , a pol i ceof f i cer i njure d h i s k ne e c hasi ng a suspe ct, a

nd wi th on e doctor re co mmendingope rati

ng on t he kne e and an

othe r doctor re com

men di ng ph y si cal the rapy , th e p en si

on board awa rd ed t he o ffice rt emp o r ar y dis ab ilit y bu t r eq uir ed him t o un de r go su r ge ry bef o r e it wo uld awar d pe r man en t di sa bilit y. Mul ack , 252 Ill .App.3d at 1067, 625 N.E .2d at 262. T he off ic er refused surg ery an d s t aye d i n p hys ica l t he r ap y, pr o mpt ing t he bo ar d t o t er minat e h is dis abi li ty pay me nts af ter it f ou nd that the refusa

l of surgery c aused the di sabi li ty to cont in

ue. The Mul ack

co ur t bega n by not ingthat although the Code lacked an y prov i si on co mpar able t o s ect ion 1 9( d) of t he Act , it fou nd t he Joli et and Mt . O live

c as es a pplicable t o a det er minatio n of w het her a du t y injur y resu lted in a clai mant’s di sab i li

ty u nde r the C ode. Stil l , the c ourt held t hat t he reco rd did not suppo rt the bo ard’s finding t hat t he o ffi

cer re fused sur ger y unre aso nably and in light o f the co nfli ct ingme dic al

opinions, ordered t he pay

men t of the di sab i l i ty b enef i ts. Mul ack , 252 Ill .App.3d at 1071, 625 N.E .2d at 265.

More on point wi

th the f act s bef ore t hi s court in

the instant case is Luc hesi v. R et irement Board of t he Fire men’s Annui

ty & B enef

it Fun d of Chi cago , 333 Ill .App.3d 543, 776 N.E.2d 703 (2002 ). In that case, a fi

refi ghter was deni

ed a di sabi

li ty pen si on fol

lowi ng an on- t he- job ac cident because t he firefight er re fused t o u nder go physical t her apy fo llowing sho ulder sur ger y. The pe ns i on boar d cla imed t ha t t he fire figh t er ’s failu r e t o pe r fo r m ph ysic al t he r ap y co nst it ut ed an int er ve nin g cause, breaki

ng the causa

l c onnecti on between

the i ni tia l shoul der i

nj ury and the di sab i l i ty. Luchesi , 333 Il l .Ap p.3d a t 544-45, 7 76 N.E.2 d at 705 . The Luchesi

court agreed

wit h Mul ack

th at Joli et and Mt . O live

gui dethe i nte rpreta ti on of24

whether a cl ai ma nt’s di sabi li ty resul ted f rom a n act of d uty wi thi n the m ean i ng of the C ode. Luchesi , 333 Ill .App.3d at 553 , 776 N.E.2d at 712 . H ow ever , in t hos e ca ses t he evide nce s upp or t ed t he con cl us i on that if the c laimant had unde rg one t he r eco mmended s ur ger y, he w ou ld have regained use of his i nj ured p art so tha

t he c oul d f

ull y return to work. Luchesi , 333 Ill .App.3d at 553, 776 N.E .2d at 712 . I n Luchesi , on t he o t her hand, t he do ct o rt es t ified t ha t he co uld no t de t er mine t he like ly re su lt if th e f i re f i gh ter h ad ke pt g oi n g to th erap y . Th

e c our t n oted th at i f th e f i re f i gh te r ha d so ught com pens ati on under the Ac

t, rat her than

ben efi ts under th e C ode , hi s f

ai l ur e to f oll ow th rough wi th p hys ic al the rapy wou l d have q

ual i f i ed un de r s ec ti on 1 9(d

) f or th e re duc

ti on or su sp en si on of com pensati on. Luchesi , 333 Ill .App.3d at 554, 776 N.E .2d at 713. But, the court wen

t on, f ail ure to f ol l owthrough with the therapy does not warra

nt the den i al of i ndi vi dual com pen sati on al together, bec ause the ev ide nc e d id n o t sho w t ha t t he r efu sa l o f t r ea t men t co un t ed as t he so le c au se o f his cond i tion . Luchesi , 333 Il

l .Ap p.3d a t 554, 776N.E.2d a

t 713. The Luchesi

co ur t st at ed t ha t t he Co de “d iffe r s ma r ke dl y” f rom the A ct b y the ab senc e of

any prov i si on si m i l ar to s ec ti on

19(d). Luchesi , 33 3 Il

l .A pp. 3d a t 554 , 77 6 N .E.2 d a

t 713 . F rom

the use of diffe r en t pr o visio ns, t he co ur t pr es ume d t ha t t he leg isla t ur e in t en de d d if feren t resul ts to f

ol l ow because the le gis la

ture sought t o pro vi

de greater protecti ons to f i ref i ghters an d poli ce of

f i cers than those pr o vid ed in

the Act for otherki

nds of e m ploye es. Luchesi , 333 Ill .App.3d at 554, 776 N.E .2d at 713. The

court noted th

at the C ode lef

t in j ured f i ref i ghters and offi

cers with ful

l disabi li ty benef its, even if they ref use d m edi cal treatm en t. Luchesi , 333 Il

l .Ap p.3d a t 555, 776N.E.2d a

t 713. Mul ack ide ntif ie d a q ua li f i cati on of

t he g ene ra l ru le: if th e r efu sa l o f t re at ment ris es t o t he le vel o f a supersedi ng cause of

continui ng di sabi li ty, then the Code perm

its den ia l of ben efi ts. But where, as in Luchesi , the record lacked evi dence t hat t he claimant would ha ve recovered the ab il

ity to work as25

a f i ref i gh ter or police off

ic er if he h ad all recom

me nded treatmen

t, t he ref usal constitutes only o ne of se ve r al c aus es o f co nt inuing disability. T he co ur t co nclude d by hold ing, in ac co rd wit h t he le g islative int ent t o pr o vide gr ea t er pr o t ec t io n fo r p o lice a nd fir efig ht er s, abs ent pr o o f th at the fi refi ghter would ha ve f ull y recove red if he h ad al l recom me nded t re at ment, his refu sal o f tr eat ment does not jus ti f

y an y red uc ti on i n b enef i ts under the Code . Luchesi , 333 Ill .App.3d at 555, 776 N.E.2d at 713. We find t he r eas oning and a nalysis employed by t he co ur t in Luchesi sou n d a n d adop t i

t to gu ide o ur o wn an alys is in t he pr es en t ca se . T he r e is evidenc e in the re co rd , su ch as t he June 2005 repor ts of Drs. Thometz an

d Moisan t hat furt her impro vement of a ppl i can t’s shoul der woul d requ i re further phy si cal rehabi li tation. That is also the opini on of Dr. Panuska. However, another doctor, Dr. Ma l i k, s tate d i n h i s J un e 2 7, 2 00 5, l

ette r, th at a pp l i ca n t w as p erm

anen tly di sab l ed. Furthe

r, app licant did s

tate t hat he h

ad undergone som

e phy si cal therapy, suc

h as ho me exer cises, aft er t he su rg er y , but h ad to disc on ti n ue th e th erap y du e to increa sed pain and , mo st impor t ant ly, the f ail ure of w or ker s’ co mpensa t ion t o p ay the medical bills. Also, t her e is no definitive st at ement fro m any of t he do ct o r s t ha t ex amine d a pp lica nt po st su r ge ry t ha t ap plic an t ’s failu r e t o co nt inu e w it ht he therapy had beco me a su per sed ingcause of the di sabi li ty, but rather, as the docto rs’ i ndicated, it may have been jus t o ne cause

of several, suc

h as the origin

al ac ci de nt, that cont ributed t o ap plicant’s co nt inuingdis abi

li ty. See Luchesi , 333 Ill .App.3d at 555, 6 25 N.E.2 d at 713 . Dr . P anu sk a himse lf, on whom the

Board placed m

uch of the b asi s f

or its deci si on, admi

tt ed durin g questioni

ng that it was un like ly app licant would i

mprove 100%, even

with reh abi li tation. Therefore, we fi

nd the Board was in error when i

t denie d applic ant dis abi

li ty be nef its b ecause h

e had n ot pursued phy

si cal therapy ag gr es sive ly

enough. The evi

dence i n thi s case i

ndicates that t he f

ai lure to aggressi

vel y purs ue26

rehab i l i tation wasnot a su

pers edi ng c aus e of

his con tin ui ng d i sab i l i ty. The de cis io n o f t he Bo ar d d en ying dis ab ilit y ben efit s t o ap plic an t , wh o wa s inju r ed in t he line of du t y, was ag ain st t he man ifes t we igh t o f t he ev ide nc e. Also , t he Bo ar d e rr ed wh en it de nie d h im b en ef i ts when it deci ded he h ad not pursued physi cal

t her apy ag gr essively eno ugh. Th e d ec i si on of t he Boa rd th at th e a pp l i ca n t f ail ed to t ake re aso nable st eps t o r emedy his co ndit ion is ag ainst t he man if est wei ght of the evi

dence. A ppli cant m et his burden t o pr o ve he is dis abl

ed from hi s duties a s a fi refighter due t o a job-related inj ury and thus entitled to disabi li ty benef its. The dec isions o f the cir cu it court an

d Board are reversed an

d the case i s rem

anded to the Kan ka ke e F i ref i gh ters ’ P en si

on Board with di rection to enter anorde

r gran ti ng the appl i ca ti on f orli ne of duty ben efi ts and any ot her rel i ef to which the a ppl i can t is en titl ed. Reversed a

nd rem anded. LYTTO N, P. J. a nd MCDA

DE, J. c oncu

rri ng.