Court Opinion

ID: 9520657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:46:33.443815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:35.661212
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BOWMAN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part. I concur in the majority’s analysis and decision that the Board’s finding that plaintiff had not proven grounds for a line-of-duty disability pension in accordance with section 3 — 114.1 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/3—114.1 (West 2002)) is against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, I disagree with the majority’s finding that section 3 — 115 of the Code (40 ILCS 5/3—115 (West 2002)) requires three practicing physicians, selected by the Board, to certify the police officer’s disability and with its consequential finding affirming the Board’s decision to deny plaintiffs application for disability benefits. I believe that the majority decision in Coyne v. Milan Police Pension Board ex rel. Jones, 347 Ill. App. 3d 713, 727-30 (2004), analyzing section 5, “Physicians’ Certificates of Disability,” correctly interprets section 3 — 115 of the Code (40 ILCS 5/3—115 (West 2002)). Consequently, I would reverse the Board’s decision to deny plaintiff disability pension benefits because the Board did not receive three physician certificates of disability.