Courts Decide Firefighter Pension Cases
Two on-duty disability pension cases were decided by the Illinois Appellate Courts recently, with one court finding in favor of the firefighter-applicant and the other for the Pension Board.
In Boyles v. Bolingbrook Firefighters Pension Fund, a firefighter filed an application for on-duty disability benefits relating to a back injury. The firefighter claimed he injured his lower back while helping to lift an injured person on a stretcher. The Pension Board determined that the firefighter was disabled, but did not qualify for a line-of-duty disability pension. On appeal, the trial court upheld the Pension Board's decision but the Illinois Appellate Court reversed and sent the case back to the Pension Board to award the firefighter a line-of-duty disability pension. The Appellate Court found the testimony of certain medical professionals that determined that the injury was caused by the performance of his firefighter duties to be more persuasive than the testimony of those medical professionals that found otherwise.
In Witteman v. Brookfield Firefighters Pension Fund, a firefighter filed an application for on-duty disability benefits relating to a back injury. He claimed he injured his back while helping lift an
overweight patient. After conducting a hearing, the Pension Board denied the on-duty disability pension, citing to various inconsistencies in the firefighter-applicant's testimony about the incident, including that he changed his story as to how the injury occurred, his failure to report the injury to coworkers, and his evasive demeanor at the Pension Board hearing. The Pension Board also found testimony of his coworkers to be credible to support a finding that the firefighter's injury did not occur as he claimed. On appeal, both the trial court and Appellate Court upheld the Pension Board's denial of the line-of-duty pension. While the Appellate Court acknowledged that there was some inconsistency in coworkers testimony, they noted that all of his coworkers testified that the firefighter-applicant did not take part in lifting the patient onto a stretcher to transport him to the ambulance as he claimed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment