Bremer v. The City of Rockford

2016 IL 119889IN THE
SUPREME COURT
OF
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
(Docket Nos. 119889, 119912 cons.)
WILLIAM BREMER, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. THE CITY OF ROCKFORD,
Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
Opinion filed December 30, 2016—Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing April 7,
2017.
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Freeman, Garman, Burke, and Theis
concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Kilbride concurred in part and dissented in part, with opinion.
OPINION
¶1 In Krohe v. City of Bloomington, 204 Ill. 2d 392 (2003), this court held that the
phrase “catastrophic injury” in section 10(a) of the Public Safety Employee
Benefits Act (Benefits Act) (820 ILCS 320/10(a) (West 2008)) is synonymous with
an injury resulting in a line-of-duty disability pension under section 4-110 of the
Illinois Pension Code (Pension Code) (40 ILCS 5/4-110 (West 2008)). The primary
issue in this case is whether the phrase “catastrophic injury” in section 10(a) is also
synonymous with an injury resulting in an occupational disease disability pension
under section 4-110.1 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/4-110.1 (West 2008)).
Based on our decision in Krohe and subsequent cases defining “catastrophic
injury,” we hold that the legislature did not intend for that phrase to be synonymous
with a disease resulting in the award of an occupational disease disability pension.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 Defendant, the City of Rockford, hired plaintiff, William Bremer, as a
firefighter in 1976. In 2004, plaintiff filed with the City of Rockford firefighters’
pension board (Board) an application for an occupational disease disability pension
under section 4-110.1 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/4-110.1 (West 2004)). The
Board granted plaintiff’s application, concluding that he satisfied the statutory
requirements for an occupational disease disability pension by establishing that he
was a firefighter with five or more years of creditable service who was unable to
perform his duties due to heart disease resulting from his service as a firefighter.
The Board found that a preponderance of the medical evidence established that
plaintiff’s cardiomyopathy resulted from the performance of his duties as a
firefighter. Plaintiff’s pension became effective in January 2005.
¶4 Defendant paid health insurance premiums for plaintiff and his wife through
February 2008, as required by a city ordinance. On February 21, 2008, defendant
informed plaintiff that it would no longer pay the premiums as of March 1, 2008,
and that plaintiff would be required to pay the premiums if he wished to maintain
the benefits.
¶5 Plaintiff then applied to defendant for continuing health insurance benefits
under section 10 of the Benefits Act. Section 10 provides premium-free health
insurance benefits for a public safety employee, his or her spouse, and any
dependent children when the employee is catastrophically injured or killed in the
line of duty under the circumstances listed in section 10(b). 820 ILCS 320/10 (West
2008). Along with his application, plaintiff submitted a copy of the Board’s
decision awarding him an occupational disease disability pension. Defendant
-2-
determined that plaintiff did not establish that he suffered a catastrophic injury as
required by section 10(a) of the Benefits Act (820 ILCS 320/10(a) (West 2008)),
based on his receipt of an occupational disease disability pension. Accordingly,
defendant denied plaintiff’s application for continuing health insurance benefits.
¶6 Plaintiff responded by filing a two-count complaint in the Winnebago County
circuit court, seeking a declaratory judgment and attorney fees. In count I, plaintiff
sought a declaration on the meaning of the term “catastrophic injury” in section
10(a) of the Benefits Act. Plaintiff asked the court to declare that the award of an
occupational disease disability pension under section 4-110.1 of the Pension Code
establishes a catastrophic injury within the meaning of section 10(a). Plaintiff also
sought a declaration that defendant was required to pay his future health insurance
premiums and to reimburse him for any premiums he paid in 2008. In count II,
plaintiff sought attorney fees and costs under the Attorneys Fees in Wage Actions
Act (Wage Actions Act) (705 ILCS 225/0.01 et seq. (West 2008)).
¶7 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on count I. The circuit
court determined that plaintiff was entitled to continuing health insurance benefits
under section 10 of the Benefits Act based on his award of an occupational disease
disability pension under section 4-110.1 of the Pension Code. The circuit court,
therefore, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on count I, denied
defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ordered defendant to reinstate
plaintiff’s health care benefits, and directed defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the
premiums he paid after defendant denied his application for benefits.
¶8 The circuit court subsequently granted defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on count II. The circuit court held that plaintiff’s postemployment health
insurance benefits under the Benefits Act do not constitute “wages earned and due
and owing according to the terms of the employment,” as required to recover
attorney fees under the Wage Actions Act.
¶9 The circuit court also granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to add a third count to
his complaint. In count III, plaintiff alleged that he could not afford health
insurance during the period when defendant declined to pay his insurance
premiums. Plaintiff sought reimbursement for over $39,000 in medical expenses
that he and his wife incurred while they were uninsured. Plaintiff also sought over
$38,000 for the premiums defendant failed to pay, alleging that he was deprived of
-3-
the value of those premiums and that defendant was unjustly enriched by not
paying them.
¶ 10 Defendant filed a combined motion to dismiss count III under sections 2-615
and 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2008)).
The circuit court granted defendant’s section 2-615 motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
claim for unpaid premiums. The circuit court also dismissed plaintiff’s claim for
approximately $36,000 in medical expenses under section 2-619. Those expenses
were incurred as a result of an automobile accident involving plaintiff’s wife, and
they were paid under plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy. The circuit court
determined plaintiff lacked standing to seek recovery of those expenses under the
Rights of Married Persons Act (750 ILCS 65/15 (West 2008)). The circuit court,
however, entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $6381.05 plus court costs
for health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses paid by
plaintiff.
¶ 11 Defendant appealed the circuit court’s award of summary judgment for plaintiff
on count I. Plaintiff filed a cross-appeal challenging the award of summary
judgment for defendant on count II and the dismissal of portions of count III.
¶ 12 The appellate court held that the circuit court erred in granting summary
judgment for plaintiff on count I. The appellate court agreed with the circuit court
the “catastrophic injury” requirement in section 10(a) of the Benefits Act was
satisfied by the award of an occupational disease disability pension under section
4-110.1 of the Pension Code, but held that there was a question of material fact on
the section 10(b) element of whether plaintiff’s injury resulted from his response to
what was reasonably believed to be an emergency. 2015 IL App (2d) 130920, ¶ 45.
That question of material fact precluded summary judgment for plaintiff on his
claim for continuing health insurance benefits under section 10 of the Benefits Act.
2015 IL App (2d) 130920, ¶ 55.
¶ 13 The appellate court agreed with the circuit court that plaintiff could not recover
attorney fees under the Wage Actions Act because postemployment health
insurance benefits under the Benefits Act do not qualify as “wages earned and due
and owing according to the terms of the employment.” 705 ILCS 225/1 (West
2008). 2015 IL App (2d) 130920, ¶ 59. Defendant therefore was entitled to
summary judgment on count II because plaintiff could not prevail on his Wage
-4-
Actions Act claim even if he were to receive continuing health insurance benefits
under the Benefits Act. 2015 IL App (2d) 130920, ¶ 60. The appellate court further
held that plaintiff’s claim in count III for unpaid health insurance premiums and
medical expenses was not ripe for adjudication given the reversal of the circuit
court’s judgment requiring defendant to pay plaintiff’s health insurance premiums
under the Benefits Act. Therefore, the circuit court’s judgment on count III was
vacated. 2015 IL App (2d) 130920, ¶ 62.
¶ 14 Justice McLaren dissented from the judgment on the Benefits Act claim,
asserting that the award of an occupational disease disability pension is not
sufficient to satisfy the “catastrophic injury” element of section 10(a). 2015 IL App
(2d) 130920, ¶¶ 71-73 (McLaren, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Justice McLaren concluded that defendant was entitled to summary judgment
because in the absence of any medical evidence, there was no genuine issue of
material fact on whether plaintiff suffered a catastrophic injury. 2015 IL App (2d)
130920, ¶ 76 (McLaren, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
¶ 15 We allowed petitions for leave to appeal filed by both plaintiff and defendant
(Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015)) and consolidated the appeals for review. We
also allowed the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association to file an amicus curiae brief.
Ill. S. Ct. R. 345 (eff. Sept. 20, 2010).
¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 17 The primary issue in this appeal is whether plaintiff’s award of an occupational
disease disability pension under section 4-110.1 of the Pension Code establishes
that he suffered a “catastrophic injury” within the meaning of section 10(a) of the
Benefits Act. Section 10 of the Benefits Act provides:
“(a) An employer who employs a full-time law enforcement, correctional or
correctional probation officer, or firefighter, who, on or after the effective date
of this Act suffers a catastrophic injury or is killed in the line of duty shall pay
the entire premium of the employer’s health insurance plan for the injured
employee, the injured employee’s spouse, and for each dependent child of the
injured employee until the child reaches the age of majority or until the end of
the calendar year in which the child reaches the age of 25 if the child continues
-5-
to be dependent for support or the child is a full-time or part-time student and is
dependent for support. ***
(b) In order for the law enforcement, correctional or correctional probation
officer, firefighter, spouse, or dependent children to be eligible for insurance
coverage under this Act, the injury or death must have occurred as the result of
the officer’s response to fresh pursuit, the officer or firefighter’s response to
what is reasonably believed to be an emergency, an unlawful act perpetrated by
another, or during the investigation of a criminal act.” 820 ILCS 320/10 (West
2008).
¶ 18 Defendant observes that in Krohe and subsequent cases, this court construed
the phrase “catastrophic injury” in section 10(a) as synonymous with an injury
resulting in a line-of-duty disability pension under section 4-110 of the Pension
Code. Defendant maintains that the award of an occupational disease disability
pension cannot establish a “catastrophic injury” because the eligibility standards
for that type of pension are different from the requirements for a line-of-duty
disability pension. According to defendant, if the legislature had intended the
award of an occupational disease disability pension to satisfy the “catastrophic
injury” requirement in section 10(a) of the Benefits Act, it would have expressed
that intent clearly. Defendant concludes that it is entitled to summary judgment on
plaintiff’s claim under the Benefits Act because there is no evidence showing he
suffered a “catastrophic injury” as required by section 10(a).
¶ 19 Plaintiff contends that an occupational disease disability pension awarded
under section 4-110.1 of the Pension Code is a line-of-duty disability pension
because, by definition, it results from service as a firefighter and arises out of the
course of employment. Plaintiff argues that his disability arose in the line of duty as
a matter of law and is, therefore, a “catastrophic injury” within the meaning of
section 10(a) of the Benefits Act.
¶ 20 This appeal arises from the circuit court’s order granting plaintiff and denying
defendant summary judgment on count I. Summary judgment is proper when “the
pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2008).
When, as here, the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, they agree that
-6-
only questions of law are involved and invite the court to decide the issues based on
the record. Nationwide Financial, LP v. Pobuda, 2014 IL 116717, ¶ 24. We review
summary judgment rulings de novo. Gurba v. Community High School District
No. 155, 2015 IL 118332, ¶ 10.
¶ 21 As the parties acknowledge, we have previously construed the term
“catastrophic injury” in section 10(a). In Krohe, the plaintiff firefighter was
awarded a line-of-duty disability pension under section 4-110 of the Pension Code.
After the plaintiff’s employer declined his request for continuing health insurance
benefits under the Benefits Act, plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory relief.
The circuit court ruled for plaintiff and required the continuation of his benefits
under the Benefits Act. The appellate court affirmed. Krohe, 204 Ill. 2d at 394.
¶ 22 On appeal to this court, the sole issue was whether the phrase “catastrophic
injury” in section 10(a) of the Benefits Act is synonymous with an injury resulting
in a line-of-duty disability pension under section 4-110 of the Pension Code.
Krohe, 204 Ill. 2d at 394. After concluding that the phrase “catastrophic injury” as
used in section 10(a) is ambiguous, this court looked to the legislative history to
determine its meaning. Krohe, 204 Ill. 2d at 395-97. This court held that the
legislative history and debates “could not be clearer” on the meaning of the phrase
“catastrophically injured.” Krohe, 204 Ill. 2d at 398. Based on the remarks in the
legislative history, we held that the legislature intended the phrase “catastrophic
injury” in section 10(a) to be “synonymous with an injury resulting in a line-of-duty
disability under section 4-110 of the [Pension] Code.” Krohe, 204 Ill. 2d at 400.
¶ 23 In Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills, 2011 IL 111838, ¶ 12, we reiterated
that the phrase “catastrophic injury,” as used in section 10(a), is a term of art
meaning an injury resulting in a line-of-duty disability pension. An injury is
declared “catastrophic” within the meaning of section 10(a) when a public safety
employee is awarded a line-of-duty disability pension. Nowak, 2011 IL 111838,
¶ 12. We explained that one of the primary purposes of the Benefits Act is to
continue employer-sponsored health insurance coverage when, due to a
line-of-duty injury, a public safety employee has been forced to take a line-of-duty
disability pension. Nowak, 2011 IL 111838, ¶ 17.
¶ 24 In Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, ¶ 23, this court stated
that in construing the phrase “catastrophic injury” in section 10(a), we had
-7-
“expressly equated the determination of a catastrophic injury with the award of a
line-of-duty disability pension.” A pension board’s award of a line-of-duty
disability pension establishes as a matter of law a catastrophic injury within the
meaning of section 10(a) of the Benefits Act. Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, ¶ 25. In that
case, the line-of-duty disability pension was awarded under section 3-114.1, which
is the police officer equivalent of section 4-110. Accordingly, since 2003, this court
has held consistently that the phrase “catastrophic injury” in section 10(a) is
synonymous with an injury resulting in the award of a line-of-duty disability
pension.
¶ 25 Plaintiff contends that his injury resulting in an occupational disease disability
pension fits within the definition of a “catastrophic injury” as a matter of law
because the injury occurred in the line of duty. Plaintiff maintains that his injury
occurred in the line of duty because, to establish an occupational disease disability,
he was required to show his injury resulted from his service as a firefighter and
arose in the course of his employment.
¶ 26 As we already explained, however, the phrase “catastrophic injury” in section
10(a) is a term of art that has been defined specifically based on the legislative
history and debates. A catastrophic injury in the context of section 10(a) means an
injury resulting in the award of a line-of-duty disability pension. Heelan, 2015 IL
118170, ¶ 23. Plaintiff cannot establish a catastrophic injury under section 10(a) of
the Benefits Act by simply showing that he suffered an injury resulting from his
service as a firefighter or an injury that occurred in the course of his employment.
Rather, he must establish an injury that resulted in a line-of-duty disability pension.
See Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, ¶ 23; Nowak, 2011 IL 111838, ¶¶ 12, 17; Krohe, 204
Ill. 2d at 400.
¶ 27 Plaintiff also contends that the requirements for an occupational disease
disability pension under section 4-110.1 of the Pension Code are essentially the
same as those for a line-of-duty disability pension under section 4-110.
Accordingly, plaintiff maintains that those two types of pensions should be treated
the same for the purpose of awarding continuing health insurance benefits under
the Benefits Act. Plaintiff concludes that this court should affirm the appellate
court’s holding that the award of an occupational disease disability pension
-8-
satisfies the “catastrophic injury” requirement under section 10(a) of the Benefits
Act.
¶ 28 Plaintiff is incorrect because this court has consistently defined “catastrophic
injury” as being a term of art that means an injury resulting in a line-of-duty
disability pension. An occupational disease disability pension awarded under
section 4-110.1 is not, by definition, a line-of-duty disability pension under section
4-110. Thus, plaintiff’s argument is wrong on its face. We note, however, that
plaintiff’s argument is not even factually correct. Section 4-110 of the Pension
Code, providing for a “line of duty” disability pension, states in pertinent part:
“If a firefighter, as the result of sickness, accident or injury incurred in or
resulting from the performance of an act of duty or from the cumulative effects
of acts of duty, is found *** to be physically or mentally permanently disabled
for service in the fire department, so as to render necessary his or her being
placed on disability pension, the firefighter shall be entitled to a disability
pension ***. A firefighter shall be considered ‘on duty’ while on any
assignment approved by the chief of the fire department, even though away
from the municipality he or she serves as a firefighter, if the assignment is
related to the fire protection service of the municipality.” 40 ILCS 5/4-110
(West 2008).
¶ 29 Section 4-110.1, providing for an “occupational disease disability pension,”
provides in pertinent part:
“The General Assembly finds that service in the fire department requires
firefighters in times of stress and danger to perform unusual tasks; that
firefighters are subject to exposure to extreme heat or extreme cold in certain
seasons while performing their duties; that they are required to work in the
midst of and are subject to heavy smoke fumes, and carcinogenic, poisonous,
toxic or chemical gases from fires; and that these conditions exist and arise out
of or in the course of employment.
An active firefighter with 5 or more years of creditable service who is found
*** unable to perform his or her duties in the fire department by reason of heart
disease, stroke, tuberculosis, or any disease of the lungs or respiratory tract,
resulting from service as a firefighter, is entitled to an occupational disease
-9-
disability pension during any period of such disability for which he or she has
no right to receive salary.
Any active firefighter who has completed 5 or more years of service and is
unable to perform his or her duties in the fire department by reason of a
disabling cancer, which develops or manifests itself during a period while the
firefighter is in the service of the fire department, shall be entitled to receive an
occupational disease disability benefit during any period of such disability for
which he or she does not have a right to receive salary. In order to receive this
occupational disease disability benefit, (i) the type of cancer involved must be a
type which may be caused by exposure to heat, radiation or a known carcinogen
as defined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and (ii) the
cancer must (and is rebuttably presumed to) arise as a result of service as a
firefighter.” 40 ILCS 5/4-110.1 (West 2008).
¶ 30 Our appellate court has previously considered whether the requirements for
establishing a line-of-duty disability under section 6-151 of the Pension Code (40
ILCS 5/6-151 (West 2004)) are the same as those for an occupational disease
disability under section 6-151.1 (40 ILCS 5/6-151.1 (West 2004)). Rokosik v.
Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 374 Ill. App. 3d 158,
168-71 (2007). Although sections 6-151 and 6-151.1 are applicable only to cities
with a population over 500,000, the requirements in those provisions are similar to
those in sections 4-110 and 4-110.1. In Rokosik, our appellate court observed that
the occupational disease disability provision required service for a specific number
of years, which reflects an intent to compensate firefighters for diseases likely to be
contracted from repeated exposure to the inherently dangerous conditions faced by
firefighters. Rokosik, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 170. By contrast, the line-of-duty disability
provision applies when a condition or injury results from an identifiable act or acts
of duty, without any requirement of a certain number of years of service. Rokosik,
374 Ill. App. 3d at 171. Accordingly, our appellate court concluded that the
requirements for establishing a section 6-151 line-of-duty disability are not the
same as those for establishing a section 6-151.1 occupational disease disability.
Rokosik, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 171.
¶ 31 The appellate court’s analysis in Rokosik applies equally to sections 4-110 and
4-110.1. Sections 4-110 and 4-110.1 have different eligibility requirements. Most
- 10 -
notably, section 4-110 does not require a certain number of years of service before
claiming a line-of-duty disability pension, while section 4-110.1 requires at least
five years of creditable service before a firefighter may seek an occupational
disease disability pension. See 40 ILCS 5/4-110, 4-110.1 (West 2008). Under
section 4-110, a line-of-duty pension is awarded based on a disability resulting
from a specific act or acts of duty. 40 ILCS 5/4-110 (West 2008). By contrast,
section 4-110.1 recognizes that firefighters work in dangerous conditions and
provides compensation when a firefighter contracts one of the listed diseases from
repeated exposure to those conditions over a set period of time. Under section
4-110.1, a firefighter must generally show the disease resulted from service as a
firefighter, but in cases involving some types of cancer there is a rebuttable
presumption that the disease arose from service as a firefighter. 40 ILCS 5/4-110.1
(West 2008).
¶ 32 The General Assembly has set forth different eligibility requirements for
section 4-110 line-of-duty disability pensions and section 4-110.1 occupational
disease disability pensions. Sections 4-110 and 4-110.1 of the Pension Code are
separate provisions that employ different language in awarding disability pensions
based on injuries or diseases suffered under different conditions. This court must
construe the Benefits Act strictly in favor of defendant as the party subject to its
operation because it created a new liability unknown at common law. Nowak, 2011
IL 111838, ¶¶ 19, 27. Under any reasonable construction, the eligibility standards
provided in sections 4-110 and 4-110.1 are different.
¶ 33 In defining the phrase “catastrophic injury,” this court has been concerned with
resolving the ambiguity presented by the language of section 10(a) and identifying
with a degree of certainty and predictability the types of injuries qualifying as
“catastrophic.” Krohe, 204 Ill. 2d at 397. In Krohe, Nowak, and Heelan, this court
defined the phrase “catastrophic injury” in section 10(a) very specifically based on
references in the legislative history and debates to “line-of-duty” disability
provisions. Nothing in the legislative history indicates an intent to expand the
definition of “catastrophic injury” to include other types of disability pensions
awarded under other sections of the Pension Code.
¶ 34 As we recently observed in Heelan, the legislature has not altered our consistent
construction of the phrase “catastrophic injury.” Our construction of that term is
- 11 -
considered part of the statute itself until the legislature amends it contrary to our
interpretation. Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, ¶ 27. We cannot expand that definition to
include injuries resulting in the award of occupational disease disability pensions
under section 4-110.1 without revising our settled determination of the legislature’s
intent in enacting that provision. While there may be legitimate policy reasons for
expanding the definition of “catastrophic injury,” any such change must come from
the legislature, not this court. Accordingly, based on our decisions in Krohe and
subsequent cases, we conclude that the legislature did not intend the phrase
“catastrophic injury” in section 10(a) of the Benefits Act to be synonymous with a
disease resulting in the award of an occupational disease disability pension as
defined by section 4-110.1 of the Pension Code. Given our construction of section
10(a) of the Benefits Act, we conclude that the circuit court erred in granting
plaintiff summary judgment on count I based on his award of an occupational
disease disability pension.
¶ 35 Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on count I because
plaintiff has failed to establish a catastrophic injury as required by section 10(a).
We agree. The parties chose to litigate plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action
through cross-motions for summary judgment. They therefore have agreed that no
factual issues exist and that the decision turns on the resolution of purely legal
issues. Founders Insurance Co. v. Munoz, 237 Ill. 2d 424, 432 (2010). Here, that
was entirely appropriate. It is undisputed that plaintiff was not awarded a
line-of-duty disability pension under section 4-110 of the Pension Code; rather, he
was awarded an occupational disease disability pension under section 4-110.1.
Therefore, if the definition of “catastrophic injury” includes injuries resulting in
occupational disease disability pensions under section 4-110.1, plaintiff is entitled
to summary judgment. If the definition of “catastrophic injury” is limited to injuries
resulting in a line-of-duty disability pension under section 4-110, defendant is
entitled to summary judgment. As we have held that the definition of “catastrophic
injury” is limited to those injuries resulting in a line-of-duty disability pension
(Heelan, 2015 IL 118170, ¶ 23; Nowak, 2011 IL 111838, ¶¶ 12, 17; Krohe, 204 Ill.
2d at 400) and it is undisputed that plaintiff was not awarded a line-of-duty
disability pension, defendant is entitled to summary judgment on count I. We
therefore enter judgment for defendant on count I. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 366(a)(5) (eff.
Feb. 1, 1994).
- 12 -
¶ 36 Plaintiff further argues that the appellate court erred in upholding the trial
court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant on count II. In this count, plaintiff
argued that he was entitled to attorney fees and costs under the Wage Actions Act
(705 ILCS 225/0.01 et seq. (West 2008)). This claim, however, was contingent on
plaintiff prevailing in his argument on count I that he suffered a “catastrophic
injury” for purposes of the Benefits Act. As we have held that defendant is entitled
to summary judgment on count I, we also hold that defendant was properly
awarded summary judgment on count II.
¶ 37 Plaintiff additionally maintains that the circuit court erred in dismissing
portions of count III of his complaint. In count III, plaintiff sought reimbursement
for medical expenses he and his wife incurred while they were uninsured. Plaintiff
also sought health insurance premiums defendant failed to pay, alleging that he was
deprived of the value of those premiums and that defendant was unjustly enriched.
The circuit court dismissed portions of plaintiff’s claims in count III but entered
judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $6381.05 plus court costs for premiums and
out-of-pocket medical expenses. The appellate court vacated the circuit court’s
judgment on count III because it was not ripe for adjudication until it was
determined whether plaintiff would prevail on count I.
¶ 38 As with count II, plaintiff’s claims in count III depended upon his establishing a
right to continuing health insurance benefits under section 10 of the Benefits Act.
We have reversed the circuit court’s award of summary judgment for plaintiff on
count I. Plaintiff did not establish a right to continuing health insurance benefits
under section 10. The appellate court therefore properly vacated the circuit court’s
judgment on count III. Because defendant’s success on count I precludes plaintiff’s
success on count III, we enter summary judgment for defendant on count III. See
Ill. S. Ct. R. 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994).
¶ 39 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 40 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the appellate court’s judgment on count I
of plaintiff’s complaint, which reversed the circuit court’s entry of summary
judgment for plaintiff, but we do so for reasons other than those given by the
appellate court. We enter summary judgment for defendant on count I. We affirm
the appellate court’s judgment on count II, which affirmed the circuit court’s
- 13 -
judgment for defendant on that count. We affirm the appellate court’s judgment on
count III, which vacated the circuit court’s rulings on that count, and we enter
judgment for defendant on count III. We vacate that portion of the appellate court’s
judgment that remanded for further proceedings.
¶ 41 Appellate court judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part; judgment
entered for defendant.
¶ 42 JUSTICE KILBRIDE, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
¶ 43 I agree with the majority that the phrase “catastrophic injury” in section 10(a) of
the Benefits Act is not synonymous with a disease resulting in the award of an
occupational disease disability pension as defined by section 4-110.1 of the
Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/4-110.1 (West 2008)). Plaintiff’s award of an
occupational disease disability pension is not sufficient, by itself, to establish the
catastrophic injury requirement of section 10(a). Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled
to summary judgment on his claim for continuing health insurance benefits in this
case because he cannot establish the section 10(a) catastrophic injury requirement
based solely on his award of an occupational disease disability pension.
¶ 44 I disagree, however, with the majority’s determination that the City of
Rockford is entitled to summary judgment in this case. In my view, this case should
be remanded for further proceedings to give plaintiff an opportunity to establish his
right to continuing health insurance coverage under the Benefits Act.
¶ 45 As the majority observes, the parties chose to litigate plaintiff’s declaratory
judgment action through cross-motions for summary judgment. They have,
therefore, agreed that no factual issues exist and the decision turns on the resolution
of purely legal issues. Founders Insurance Co. v. Munoz, 237 Ill. 2d 424, 432
(2010). The filing of cross-motions for summary judgment does not, however,
establish that there is no issue of material fact, and it does not obligate a court to
render summary judgment. Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 28. Summary
judgment is a drastic means of disposing of litigation, and it should be granted only
when the movant’s right to judgment is clear and free from doubt. Seymour v.
Collins, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 42.
- 14 -
¶ 46 Prior to the decision in this case, the law was established that the phrase
“catastrophic injury” in section 10(a) of the Benefits Act is synonymous with an
injury resulting in the award of a line-of-duty disability pension under section
4-110 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/4-110 (West 2008)). Krohe v. City of
Bloomington, 204 Ill. 2d 392 (2003). The law was not established on the critical
issue in this case, whether a “catastrophic injury” under section 10(a) is also
synonymous with the award of an occupational disease disability pension under
section 4-110.1 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/4-110.1 (West 2008)). Both the
circuit court and the appellate court held that the “catastrophic injury” requirement
was satisfied by the award of an occupational disease disability pension. This court
has now clarified that an injured public safety employee cannot satisfy the
“catastrophic injury” requirement based only on the award of an occupational
disease disability pension.
¶ 47 This court’s decision, however, does not necessarily preclude plaintiff from
obtaining continuing health insurance benefits under the Benefits Act. While
section 4-110, defining a line-of-duty disability pension, and section 4-110.1,
defining an occupational disease disability pension, have different eligibility
requirements, those provisions are not mutually exclusive. Plaintiff’s receipt of an
occupational disease disability pension does not preclude him from establishing
that he also could have met the requirements for a line-of-duty disability pension
for purposes of receiving section 10 benefits. Those provisions may overlap in
some cases with an injured public safety employee being able to satisfy both of
them. Indeed, the trial court recognized that plaintiff may have been able to
establish the requirements for a line-of-duty disability pension as defined by
section 4-110. The trial court observed that, over his 27-year career, plaintiff fought
fires that exposed him to chemicals, toxins, and fumes, including carbon monoxide.
He was required to go into fires, overhaul fire scenes, and move people, debris, and
heavy equipment. In its written decision, the trial court asserted that “[u]nder the
specific facts of the case, there is reason to believe that Mr. Bremer’s disabling
sickness would have qualified for a line of duty disability under Section 4-110 had
that been requested at the administrative level.”
¶ 48 There is nothing in the plain language of the Benefits Act stating that the trial
court cannot make an independent determination on the “catastrophic injury”
requirement in section 10(a) or that the only way to establish a catastrophic injury is
- 15 -
through the Board’s award of a line-of-duty disability pension. This court has
established that a declaratory judgment action filed in the trial court is the
appropriate way to seek benefits under section 10 of the Benefits Act. Gaffney v.
Board of Trustees of the Orland Fire Protection District, 2012 IL 110012,
¶¶ 46-47. The Benefits Act does not cross-reference the Pension Code.
Accordingly, the trial court may make an independent determination on remand on
whether plaintiff suffered a “catastrophic injury” under section 10(a).
¶ 49 Given the circumstances of this case, I believe the matter should be remanded
to the trial court to give plaintiff an opportunity to meet the requirements of section
10(a), as clarified in this decision. While plaintiff cannot establish a catastrophic
injury based only on his award of an occupational disease disability pension, he
may be able to present additional evidence in this case to show an injury as defined
by the line-of-duty disability provision in section 4-110 sufficient to qualify for
section 10 benefits. I believe this case presents a disputed question of material fact
on whether plaintiff can meet that standard. The city’s right to judgment on
plaintiff’s claim for continuing health insurance benefits is not clear and free from
doubt, and therefore, the drastic means of summary judgment is not appropriate for
disposing of this litigation. Seymour, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 42.
¶ 50 In my view, plaintiff should not be foreclosed from obtaining continuing health
insurance benefits under section 10 based solely on his decision to seek an
occupational disease disability pension rather than a line-of-duty disability pension.
Continuing health insurance benefits under section 10 provide a critical safety net
for catastrophically injured public safety workers. This case should be remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings on plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action.
¶ 51 Finally, plaintiff’s claim for attorney fees and costs under the Wage Actions
Act (705 ILCS 225/0.01 et seq. (West 2008)) as alleged in count II and his claim for
reimbursement of medical expenses as alleged in count III both depend upon his
right to continuing health insurance benefits under section 10 of the Benefits Act.
Those claims should be remanded to the circuit court for decision along with count
I. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s award of summary
judgment to the city on counts I, II, and III of plaintiff’s complaint.
- 16 -