Schoenbein v. Board of Trustees ( 1965 )

CORYN, J.,

dissenting:

I do not agree with the majority opinion in this case, as I am of the opinion that their interpretation of the words “physical disability” as used in the Police Pension Fund Act, Ch 24, § 10-8-7, 111 Rev Stat 1961, is too narrow and not within the spirit and intent of said statute. Some emphasis has been placed on dictionary definitions of these words in the majority opinion. The correct definition, in my opinion, is to be found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, on page 548, which states: “A physical disability is a disability or incapacity caused by physical defect or infirmity, or mental weakness or alienation. . . .” This definition recognizes that the human mind, limbs, organs, etc., are all parts of the whole, that is, the body, and that physical disability means impairment of any part of the body. That this broader definition of the term “physical disability” was intended by the legislature is even more evident when we consider that mental incapacity often results from illness or injury to parts of the body other than the brain. “Statutes granting pensions to public officers, including veterans, policemen, firemen and other public employees, were enacted to stimulate governmental efficiency by encouraging continued and loyal public service, and as a reward for the hardships and hazards suffered by the soldiers in our armies. Although this type of legislation constitutes a form of public grant, nevertheless it has as its purpose the promotion of the general welfare, and for that reason pension statutes are liberally construed to accomplish their objectives. Thus in determining the beneficiaries entitled to pensions, qualifications of the pensioner, and the time of service required for obtaining a pension, the courts should not resort to technicalities. . . .” Sutherland Statutory Construction (3rd Edition) Volume 3, § 7209. In my opinion, mental illness or injury, and resulting disability, is within the meaning and intent'of that section of the Police Pension Fund Act providing for disability benefits to a policeman who is “physically disabled to such an extent as to necessitate the suspending of performance of his duty on such police force.” The order of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County granting the plaintiff a disability pension should be affirmed.