Title: Krohe v. City of Bloomington
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 94112
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: March 20, 2003

Docket No. 94112-Agenda 14-January 2003.
BILL KROHE, Appellee, v. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, 								Appellant.
Opinion filed March 20, 2003.
 
	JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:
	The sole issue in this appeal is whether, under section 10(a)
of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act (Act) (820 ILCS
320/10 (West 2000)), the phrase "catastrophic injury" is
synonymous with an injury resulting in a line-of-duty disability
under section 4-110 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS
5/4-110 (West 2000)). We hold that it is.
BACKGROUND
	Plaintiff, Bill Krohe, was a firefighter employed by defendant,
the City of Bloomington. In June 2000, and pursuant to section
4-110 of the Code, the City's pension board awarded plaintiff a
line-of-duty disability pension for injuries sustained in the line of
duty.(1) Shortly thereafter, plaintiff asked the City to continue
paying his and his family's health insurance premiums, as required
by section 10(a). Insisting that section 10(a) did not mandate such
payment, the City declined plaintiff's request. Plaintiff then filed
a complaint for declaratory relief. The circuit court of McLean
County ruled in plaintiff's favor and ordered the City to continue
paying plaintiff's health insurance premiums. The City appealed,
and, with one justice dissenting, the appellate court affirmed. 329
Ill. App. 3d 1133. We granted the City's petition for leave to
appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a).

ANALYSIS
	The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain
and give effect to the legislature's intent. Michigan Avenue
National Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493, 503-04 (2000).
The best indication of legislative intent is the statutory language,
given its plain and ordinary meaning. Illinois Graphics Co. v.
Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469, 479 (1994). Where the language is clear
and unambiguous, we must apply the statute without resort to
further aids of statutory construction. Davis v. Toshiba Machine
Co., America, 186 Ill. 2d 181, 184-85 (1999). If the statutory
language is ambiguous, however, we may look to other sources to
ascertain the legislature's intent. People v. Ross, 168 Ill. 2d 347,
352 (1995). The construction of a statute is a question of law that
is reviewed de novo. In re Estate of Dierkes, 191 Ill. 2d 326, 330
(2000).
	Section 10(a) provides:
			"(a) An employer who employs a full-time ***
firefighter, who *** suffers a catastrophic injury or is
killed in the line of duty shall pay the entire premium of
the employer's health insurance plan for the injured
employee, the injured employee's spouse, and for each
dependent child of the injured employee until the child
reaches the age of majority ***." 820 ILCS 320/10(a)
(West 2000).
The problem in this case arises from the fact that, although the
legislature made section 10(a)'s application contingent upon the
existence of a "catastrophic injury," the Act nowhere defines
"catastrophic injury." The City maintains that the absence of a
definition is of no consequence, however, as the phrase
"catastrophic injury" unambiguously encompasses only those
injuries that "severely limit the earning power of the affected
employee."(2) Plaintiff counters that the phrase is "ambiguous,
uncertain, and subjective" and that its meaning is ascertainable
only by examining the Act's legislative history.
	We agree with plaintiff. As used in section 10(a), the phrase
"catastrophic injury" is ambiguous. A statute is ambiguous if it is
capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons
in two or more different ways. People v. Jameson, 162 Ill. 2d 282,
288 (1994). In this case, "reasonably well-informed persons" have
tendered no less than six distinct definitions of "catastrophic
injury," all of which purport to vindicate the legislature's intent.
	As mentioned above, the City initially argues that the phrase
"catastrophic injury" encompasses only those injuries that
"severely limit the earning power of the affected employee."
(Emphasis added.) Elsewhere in its brief, the City contends that "a
reasonable interpretation of [section 10(a)] is that the catastrophic
injury be of such a nature that the firefighter is precluded, as a
result of a line-of-duty injury, from obtaining gainful employment
elsewhere which provides a salary comparable to that of a
firefighter." (Emphasis added.) The City then endorses yet a third
construction of "catastrophic injury," that articulated by the
appellate court in Villarreal v. Village of Schaumburg, 325 Ill.
App. 3d 1157 (2001). In Villarreal, the court held that a
"catastrophic injury" is one that is "financially ruinous," rendering
a firefighter "incapable of engaging in any gainful employment."
(Emphasis in original.) Villarreal, 325 Ill. App. 3d at 1163. In his
dissent below, Justice Steigmann posits that "whatever it means,
it means something more than a duty-related injury which qualifies
a firefighter for a line-of-duty disability pension." (Emphasis
added.) 329 Ill. App. 3d at 1141 (Steigmann, J., dissenting). The
Villages of Schaumburg and Skokie, as amicus in this appeal,
maintain that catastrophic injuries are those "that approach a life-threatening status and/or that interfere with an individual's earning
capacity." (Emphasis added.) Finally, both plaintiff and the
Associated Firefighters of Illinois, as amicus, insist that any injury
that renders a person permanently unable to engage in his or her
chosen profession is, by definition, "catastrophic."
	Significantly, not one of the six definitions set forth above
relies exclusively upon section 10(a)'s plain language. On the
contrary, the definitions advanced by or in support of the City
derive from four distinct dictionary definitions of "catastrophe,"
as well as from statutory definitions borrowed from other
jurisdictions. Similarly, the definitions advanced by or in support
of plaintiff come not from section 10(a) itself but from section
10(a)'s legislative history. And while all of these definitions are to
some degree "reasonable," none of them are either compelled or
foreclosed by the statute's plain language. We therefore hold that
the phrase "catastrophic injury," as used in section 10(a), is
ambiguous.
	In reaching this result, we note that even the definitions
proffered by the City do nothing to resolve section 10's ambiguity,
as they fail to identify with any degree of certainty or predictability
what types of injuries qualify as "catastrophic." Indeed, one point
on which plaintiff and the City agree is that blindness and loss of
limb are textbook examples of "catastrophic" injuries under
section 10(a). Yet neither blindness nor loss of limb renders a
firefighter "incapable of engaging in any gainful employment,"
which the City at one point insists is the sine qua non of a
"catastrophic injury." Nor do these injuries necessarily preclude a
firefighter from "obtaining gainful employment elsewhere which
provides a salary comparable to that of a firefighter," the City's
alternative standard for evaluating whether an injury is
"catastrophic." At the same time, however, both blindness and loss
of limb instantly terminate a firefighter's ability to pursue his
chosen profession, a definition of "catastrophic" that plaintiff
endorses but the City categorically rejects. Thus, even as defined
by the City, "catastrophic injury" remains steadfastly ambiguous.
	Because the phrase "catastrophic injury" is ambiguous, we
may look beyond the Act's language to ascertain its meaning. In
re D.D., 196 Ill. 2d 405, 419 (2001). To this end, a statute's
legislative history and debates are "[v]aluable construction aids in
interpreting an ambiguous statute." Advincula v. United Blood
Services, 176 Ill. 2d 1, 19 (1996).
	Here, the legislative history and debates could not be clearer.
On November 14, 1997, the Illinois Senate debated whether to
override Governor Edgar's veto of House Bill 1347, which sought
to enact the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act. Immediately
prior to the vote, the bill's sponsor, Senator Laura Kent Donahue,
delivered the following remarks:
		"I'd like to say for the sake of the record what we mean
by catastrophically injured. What it means is that it is our
intent to define 'catastrophically injured' as a police
officer or firefighter who, due to injuries, has been forced
to take a line of duty disability." 90th Ill. Gen. Assem.,
Senate Proceedings, November 14, 1997, at 136
(statements of Senator Donahue).
At the conclusion of Senator Donahue's remarks, the Senate
overrode the Governor's veto of House Bill 1347 by a vote of 58
to 1.
	In light of Senator Donahue's remarks, which were delivered
for the sole purpose of defining for the record "catastrophic
injury," plaintiff urges us to likewise construe "catastrophic
injury" as any injury that results in a line-of-duty disability under
section 4-110 of the Code. Unfortunately, it is not that simple.
While Senator Donahue's statement of legislative intent could not
be clearer, it alone cannot control the outcome of this case. As the
City correctly points out, Senator Donahue's statement was made
only after the Governor vetoed House Bill 1347 and therefore
played no role in the General Assembly's initial decision to enact
section 10(a). By itself, then, Senator Donahue's statement is of
only limited value in ascertaining the legislature's intent.
	That said, the legislative history of House Bill 1347, both
prior to and following the Governor's veto, is replete with
statements of legislative intent that fully comport with Senator
Donahue's November 14, 1997, remarks. Immediately prior to the
House of Representatives' initial vote on House Bill 1347, the
Bill's sponsor, Representative Art Tenhouse, advised his
colleagues as follows:
		"1347 is a simple Bill. It simply provides that full-time
law enforcement officers and firefighters that are killed or
disabled in the line of duty, we're going to continue the
health benefits for the officer's children and spouse."
(Emphasis added.) 90th Ill. Gen. Assem., House
Proceedings, April 14, 1997, at 180 (statements of
Representative Tenhouse).
Following the conclusion of these remarks, House Bill 1347
passed by a vote of 113 to 4. Similarly, immediately prior the
Senate's initial vote on House Bill 1347, Senator Donahue advised
her colleagues:
		"And what this does is that it provides that for full-time
law enforcement officers and firefighters that are killed or
disabled in the line of duty shall continue the health
benefits for the officer or the firefighter, their spouses and
their children." (Emphasis added.) 90th Ill. Gen. Assem.,
Senate Proceedings, May 16, 1997, at 192 (statements of
Senator Donahue).
Following these remarks, the Senate passed House Bill 1347 by a
vote of 53 to 1. Finally, immediately prior the House's vote to
override Governor Edgar's veto of House Bill 1347,
Representative Tenhouse reminded the chamber:
		"House Bill 1347 *** [p]rovides that employers of full-time law enforcement and firefighters who are killed or
disabled in the line of duty, shall continue health benefits
for the officer or firefighter and the spouse and children
thereof." (Emphasis added.) 90th Ill. Gen. Assem., House
Proceedings, October 28, 1997, at 16 (statements of
Representative Tenhouse).
Following these remarks, House Bill 1347 once again was passed,
this time by a vote of 115 to 1.
	Thus, contrary to the City's position, Senator Donahue's
announcement that a "catastrophically injured" firefighter is
synonymous with a "firefighter who, due to injuries, has been
forced to take a line of duty disability" is not an isolated "eleventh
hour" statement. Rather, as the foregoing account demonstrates,
both of the Bill's sponsors were concerned from the outset with
line-of-duty disabilities, explicitly informing their colleagues of
the Bill's focus immediately prior to every vote. In light of this
unambiguous legislative history, and in light of section 10(a)'s
facial ambiguity, we will defer to the legislature's judgment.
Accordingly, like the appellate and circuit courts below, we
construe the phrase "catastrophic injury" as synonymous with an
injury resulting in a line-of-duty disability under section 4-110 of
the Code.

CONCLUSION
	For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the appellate court
is affirmed.
Affirmed.
 



 



1.      1Line of duty disability pensions are paid to firefighters who "as the
result of sickness, accident or injury incurred in or resulting from the
performance of an act of duty or from the cumulative effects of acts of
duty, [are] found *** to be physically or mentally permanently disabled
for service in the fire department." 40 ILCS 5/4-110 (West 2000). 

2.      2As discussed further below, this is but one of several definitions
tendered by the City.