Court Opinion

ID: 9862230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:04:24.200948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:29.752883
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE UNVERZAGT, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority because I believe the trial court was correct in its rulings and should have been affirmed. I am of the opinion that the plaintiff’s claim for disability pension was clearly supported by the manifest weight of affirmative evidence in the record. The evidence which established a causal relationship between plaintiff’s disability and the performance of his duties as a firefighter rests on the opinions presented in the testimony of Dr. Schuler and the written opinion of Dr. Carnow. Both of these doctors actually examined Ernzen. Dr. Carnow is a specialist of international reputation in occupational diseases; his specialization is in the discovery of the causes of occupational disease. Dr. Schuler is a surgeon. His expertise on this matter comes from his specific search of the available medical literature on the causes of arteriosclerosis in general and on the correlation between stress and inhalation of fumes with the early development of arteriosclerosis in firemen in particular. Each of these doctors stated it was his medical opinion that there was a causal relationship between the performance of the duties of a firefighter by the plaintiff and the development of his disability. No evidence was developed in any of the four hearings which conflicted with or contradicted the evidentiary elements on which the opinions of Doctors Schuler and Carnow were based. The diagnosis that plaintiff’s condition was premature arteriosclerosis originally made in the report from the University of Illinois Research Hospital was conceded to be accurate by Dr. Sloniewicz. It was undisputed that plaintiff was exposed to stress and inhalation of smoke and toxic fumes in the performance of his duties as a firefighter. Stress, smoke and toxic fume inhalation are specially identified by the Act as being hazards of fire fighting. “The General Assembly finds and declares that service in the Fire Department requires that firemen, in times of stress and danger must perform unusual tasks; that by reason of their occupation, firemen are subject to exposure to great heat and to extreme cold in certain seasons while in performance of their duties; that by reason of their employment firemen are required to work in the midst of and are subject to heavy smoke fumes, and poisonous, toxic or chemical gases from fires. The General Assembly further finds and declares that all the aforementioned conditions exist and arise out of or in the course of such employment.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 108K, par. 4 — 110.1. Dr. Schuler testified that arteriosclerosis is a multifactorial disease. He listed the factors which are known to correlate highly with premature development of arteriosclerosis. Of the five which are universally recognized by doctors, plaintiff definitely did not have three of the five factors, had one in a moderate amount, and the fifth factor was indeterminate. The doctor then examined plaintiffs exposure to several factors which current medical literature establishes as being related to premature arteriosclerosis. Of these, only the two which are recognized by the statute, those being stress and inhalation of smoke and fumes, appear in plaintiff’s medical history. Thus, by the process of elimination, Dr. Schuler established the probability of a causal relationship between stress and smoke inhalation related to fire-fighting duties, and the development of plaintiff’s disability. This analysis of the factors known to correlate with premature arteriosclerosis was not disputed by Dr. Sloniewicz. It appears also that since plaintiff has ceased to be a fireman he has not experienced additional severe attacks. The manifest weight of the evidence in the record rests upon the opinions of two qualified physicians, each of whom made a thorough study of the current literature in the field. It also rests upon the diagnosis of the physicians at the research hospital, following some two weeks of extensive testing. This mass of evidence shows the chemical and physiological mechanisms by which stress and the inhalation of smoke and toxic fumes are connected with premature arteriosclerosis. The evidence also includes the medical conclusion based deductively upon a process of elimination of the factors medically known to correlate with premature arteriosclerosis. Finally, the evidence shows a clear relationship between taking medicine and ceasing to fight fires, with an improvement or stabilization in plaintiff’s condition. All of this evidence taken against the background of the statutory recognition of plaintiff’s exposure in the course of his fire-fighting duties to stress and the inhalation of smoke and toxic fumes. No medical evidence contradicting these various elements of proof appears in the record. The expressed statutory purpose of the Firemen’s Pension Fund is to benefit them, their widows, children and dependents. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 108)2, par. 4 — 101.) It has been held that the pension laws of this State should be liberally construed to effectuate their purpose and in favor of those intended to be benefited. Peterson v. Board of Trustees (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 260; Rydberg v. Quinn (1977), 54 Ill. App. 3d 578; McCarthy v. Retirement Board (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 330; Board of Trustees v. Department of Insurance (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 155. I agree with the trial court that the decision of the Board denying the pension was erroneous and contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the plaintiff should be entitled to a service-connected pension. I would affirm the trial court.