On April 18, 2013 the First District Appellate Court issued its Opinion in Summers v. Retirement Board of Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago.  The Board denied the plaintiff’s application for duty disability benefits and awarded the plaintiff a non-duty disability pension.  The trial court reversed the Board’s decision.  The appellate court reversed the trial court and affirmed the Board’s decision.

The plaintiff’s job duties included loading boxes into a box truck.  While loading the truck, the plaintiff injured his back.  The Board however concluded that the Applicant was not performing an “act of duty” at the time he injured his back while performing his assigned tasks of loading and delivering supplies.

First, the court concluded that it should review de novo the issue of whether the Applicant’s disability was incurred in the performance of an act of duty.  The court concluded the facts were undisputed and that its only function was to interpret the phrase “act of duty.”  The court performed an exhaustive analysis of Article 3 and Article 5 “act of duty” case law.  The court concluded that although pension statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the pensioner, the court could not conclude that the Board erred when it found the plaintiff was not injured in the performance of an act of duty.  The court concluded that the “capacity” the plaintiff was acting in at the time of his injury – regardless of the facts that he was on duty and in uniform – was that of a “delivery person.”  The plaintiff was acting in a capacity that has a clear counterpart in civilian life.  The court held that it was not relevant to the “act of duty” inquiry that the plaintiff was injured while performing his assigned task or that only police officers were assigned to the delivery truck.

Summers represents an important case for Article 3 line of duty disability claims.  Please contact PGM if you have any questions regarding this matter.