Salcedo v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago

2023 IL App (1st) 220728No. 1-22-0728
Second Division
March 31, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
____________________________________________________________________________
MARIA SALCEDO, Widow of Chicago ) Appeal from the
Police Officer, Ruben Salcedo, Deceased,
) Circuit Court of
) Cook County.
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. )
) No. 2021 CH 3035
THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE )
POLICEMEN’S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT ) Honorable
FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ) Alison C. Conlon
) Judge, presiding.
Defendant-Appellee. )
)
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE COBBS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Howse and Ellis concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 While on duty in 2008, Chicago police officer Ruben Salcedo suffered various injuries,
including traumatic brain injury, as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Following his accident,
Salcedo was awarded a duty disability pension, which he received until his mandatory retirement
from the Chicago Police Department (CPD) at age 63 in 2015. After Salcedo’s death in 2018, his
widow, plaintiff, Maria Salcedo, initially filed a claim for a widow’s compensation annuity benefit
No. 1-22-0728
pursuant to section 5-144 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/5-144 (West 2020)). 1
Following an evidentiary hearing, the Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit
Fund of the City of Chicago (Board) denied plaintiff’s claim on the basis that Salcedo’s mandatory
retirement rendered plaintiff ineligible to receive the supplemental annuity. Plaintiff appealed the
Board’s final administrative decision to the circuit court of Cook County, which affirmed the
Board’s decision. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Board erred in determining that Salcedo’s
retirement prohibited her from receiving a supplemental annuity. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 Section 5-101 of the Code establishes the creation of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit
Fund in Chicago (the fund). Id. § 5-101. The fund was created and maintained “for the benefit of
its policemen, their widows and children, and of all contributors to, participants in, and
beneficiaries of any police pension fund in operation.” Id. The fund is administered by the Board.
Id. §§ 5-108, 5-178.
¶4 Pursuant to the Code, the Board’s duties and responsibilities include, among others, the
creation of rules and regulations necessary for the administration of the fund, including approval
of any payment for any annuity, pension, or benefit. Id. §§ 5-195, 5-189. The granting, increase,
reduction, or suspension of any benefit or annuity must be approved by a majority vote of the
members of the Board, following appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. §§ 5-189,
5-182.
Although plaintiff’s application initially sought a widow’s compensation annuity, plaintiff’s
1
counsel communicated to the Board that the application was instead for a widow’s supplemental annuity,
the impact of which we discuss later in this disposition.
-2-
No. 1-22-0728
¶5 The fund authorizes disbursement of disability benefits for officers who are injured in the
line of duty. Section 5-154 provides for disbursement of a “duty disability benefit” for any “active
policeman who becomes disabled on or after the effective date as the result of injury incurred on
or after such date in the performance of an act of duty.” Id. § 5-154(a). 2 A disabled police officer
must provide proof of a disability to the Board at least once a year, unless the Board makes a
finding that the officer’s injury has resulted in a permanent disability. See id. §§ 5-156, 5-
154(a)(iii).
¶6 A disabled police officer may receive a duty disability benefit “until the policeman
becomes age 63 or would have been retired by operation of law, whichever is later.” (Emphasis
added.) Id. § 5-154(c). “Thereafter[,] the policeman shall receive the annuity provided in
accordance with the other provisions of [the Code].” Id. Such annuities are colloquially referred
to as “life annuities” but are called “prior service” and “age and service” annuities within the Code.
See id. § 5-121 (“Prior service annuity, age and service annuity *** shall consist of equal monthly
payments for life with the first payment payable one month after the occurrence of the event upon
which payment shall depend.”); see also id. §§ 5-122, 5-123.
¶7 The Code also provides for the granting of similar benefits for wives and widows of police
officers, such as a widow’s annuity and widow’s prior service annuity. See id. §§ 5-121, 5-133 to
5-147.1. Relevant here, the Code also grants benefits and annuities to widows of officers whose
deaths resulted from on-duty injuries. Id. § 5-144. Specifically, a widow may receive a
“compensation annuity” and a “supplemental annuity” as defined in section 5-144. Id. A widow is
“Policeman” is defined in the Code, in part, as “(a) An employee in the regularly constituted police
2
department of a city appointed and sworn or designated by law as a peace officer with the title of
policeman[.]” 40 ILCS 5/5-109(a) (West 2020). “Policeman” is also gender-inclusive. See id. § 5-109.1.
-3-
No. 1-22-0728
eligible for a compensation annuity if the “widow of a policeman whose death, on or after January
1, 1940, results from injury incurred in the performance of an act or acts of duty.” (Emphasis
added.) Id. § 5-144(a). The amount of the compensation annuity is determined by calculating
“the difference between the annuity and an amount equal to 75% of the policeman’s salary
attached to the position he held *** that would ordinarily have been paid to him as though
he were in active discharge of his duties *** until the policeman, had he lived, would have
attained age 63.” (Emphases added.) Id.
The total amount of the widow’s compensation annuity, when combined with any potential
children’s annuity award, cannot exceed the amounts set forth in section 5-152 of the Code. 3 Id.
¶8 A widow is eligible for a “supplemental annuity” “[u]pon termination of the compensation
annuity.” (Emphasis added.) Id. § 5-144(b). This amount is
“equal to the difference between the annuity for the widow and an amount equal to 75% of
the annual salary (including all salary increases and longevity raises) that the policeman
would have been receiving when he attained age 63 if the policeman had continued in
service at the same rank *** that he last held in the police department.” (Emphasis added.)
Id.
Significantly, a widow is not entitled to either a compensation or supplemental annuity unless “the
death of the policeman was a direct result of the injury, or the injury was of such character as to
prevent him from subsequently resuming service as a policeman.” (Emphasis added.) Id. § 5-
144(c).
Section 5-152 governs the disbursement of annuities for parents and children of police officers.
3
See 40 ILCS 5/5-152 (West 2020).
-4-
No. 1-22-0728
¶9 In order to receive either a compensation or supplemental annuity, the widow must apply
to the Board and accompany the application with a sworn affidavit regarding the specific details
of the “time, place, and events supporting or related to the application.” 4 Retirement Bd. of the
Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chi. R. 4.2(b) (adopted Mar. 25, 2021). The application
must also include “relevant medical, psychological, and related records from all health care
providers providing treatment, diagnoses, or evaluation of the applicant for any condition related
to [the] request for *** benefits.” Retirement Bd. of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of
Chi. R. 4.2(c) (adopted Mar. 25, 2021). The Board may hold an evidentiary hearing on the
application and may also subpoena witnesses or documents for resolution of the request.
Retirement Bd. of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chi. Rs. 7.1, 14.1 (adopted Mar.
25, 2021).
¶ 10 A. Background
¶ 11 1. Salcedo’s Injury and Receipt of Various Disability Benefits
¶ 12 On September 18, 2008, while on duty, Salcedo was involved in a high-speed motor vehicle
accident and was ejected from his vehicle, sustaining various injuries to his left shoulder, left
acromioclavicular joint, right knee, and head.
¶ 13 On January 28, 2010, the Board awarded Salcedo a duty disability pension of 75% of his
salary at the time of his accident. This award was memorialized in a letter to Salcedo on April 1,
2010, which stated that he was entitled to his duty disability benefits while the original duty
disability persisted or until Salcedo’s “attainment of age 63 or [where he] would have been retired
4
A copy of the Board’s “Hearing Rules and Procedures” is included within the record.
-5-
No. 1-22-0728
by operation of law, whichever is later.” The letter further advised that upon formal resignation
from the department, he would then begin to receive a “life annuity.”
¶ 14 On October 29, 2015, Salcedo reached the age of 63 and was mandatorily retired from
CPD. Subsequently, on November 24, 2015, the Board awarded Salcedo a life annuity, which was
memorialized in a letter to him on December 11, 2015.
¶ 15 On July 23, 2018, Salcedo passed away at the age of 65. Per his death certificate, the cause
of death was gastrointestinal hemorrhage, esophageal varices, and decompensated cirrhosis. On
September 28, 2018, the Board awarded plaintiff, as Salcedo’s widow, a monthly lifetime annuity
benefit, which was memorialized in a letter on October 12, 2018.
¶ 16 2. Plaintiff’s Claim for a Widow’s Annuity
¶ 17 On January 11, 2021, plaintiff filed a claim for a widow’s compensation annuity benefit.
In the claim, Plaintiff acknowledged that she was receiving a “standard widow’s annuity” and that
she was “entitled to a widow’s compensation annuity, per 40 ILCS 5/5-144(c), retroactive to the
date of his death.” In support of her application, she attached (1) her own affidavit; (2) the affidavit
of Dr. Michael G. Maday; (3) the affidavit of Dr. Joseph P. Laluya; (4) the affidavit of Dr.
Muhannad Kayali; and (5) various medical records, which, according to plaintiff, indicated that
“but for [Salcedo’s] death, his on-duty injuries would have prevented him from subsequently or
ever, resuming service with the police department.” Plaintiff’s affidavit averred as to her
observations of the accident’s effect on her husband until his death.
¶ 18 Dr. Maday’s affidavit averred that he treated Salcedo for multiple medical conditions
related to his accident. Dr. Maday authored a medical opinion in September 2013, which was
attached to his affidavit, and opined that Salcedo was “permanently and totally disabled from
returning to police duty, whether light or full duty.” Dr. Maday further opined that the disability
-6-
No. 1-22-0728
would have continued throughout the remainder of Salcedo’s life, regardless of his death on July
23, 2018, and that his disabilities prevented him from “subsequently resuming service as a
policeman for the remainder of his expected life.”
¶ 19 Dr. Laluya’s affidavit averred that he had treated Salcedo for multiple medical conditions,
including a head contusion, concussion, traumatic brain injury, dizziness, post traumatic
headaches, left shoulder, and rotator cuff and right knee tears. Dr. Laluya further stated that he
authored a September 23, 2013, letter, which provided that, “based on a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, Salcedo was permanently and totally disabled from returning to any police duty,
whether light or full duty, and that the disability would have continued throughout the remainder
of his life, regardless of his untimely death.”
¶ 20 Lastly, Dr. Kayali’s affidavit, dated November 2, 2020, averred that he had treated Salcedo
for multiple injuries, including for concussion, traumatic brain injury, dizziness, migraine-like
headaches, left shoulder, rotator cuffs, knee pain, low back pain, generalized weakness, and
instability of both feet and fatigue. Dr. Kayali opined that, “based on a reasonable degree of
medical certainty,” Salcedo was “permanently and totally disabled from returning to any police
duty, whether light or full duty, and that the disability would have continued throughout the
remainder of his life, regardless of his untimely death.”
¶ 21 B. Board Proceedings
¶ 22 On April 29, 2021, the Board held an evidentiary hearing on plaintiff’s application. When
introducing plaintiff’s claim, one of the Board members indicated that the Board was “ready to
hear the widow’s compensation annuity hearing in the case of Officer Ruben Salcedo.” The
hearing officer further stated that the hearing was being conducted pursuant to section 5-144(c) of
-7-
No. 1-22-0728
the Code “to determine the enhanced widow’s annuity claim.” However, in plaintiff counsel’s
opening statement, counsel referred to the requested annuity as a “supplemental annuity.” 5
¶ 23 Subsequently, prior to the beginning of the hearing, the hearing officer indicated that there
were two possible issues to be resolved by the Board: first, “the medical issue” and, second, a
“legal issue in light of the fact that *** Salcedo passed away after he was retired at age 63 due to
the mandatory retirement age.” Following opening statements, the hearing officer asked again,
“[W]hat role does the mandatory retirement age factor in here[?]” He further stated, “I’m certainly
going to think about that because I think you might want to address that if the Board has any
questions about that because *** Salcedo, obviously, has been mandatorily retired off of disability
at age 63 and passed after that. *** That’s something I think that the Board is going to want to
maybe hear from you about.”
¶ 24 1. Evidence Admitted at the Hearing
¶ 25 Various exhibits were admitted into the record without objection, including the affidavits,
opinions, and medical reports previously filed with plaintiff’s request. The Board also admitted an
independent medical examination report conducted on December 7, 2009, by Dr. Nikhil N. Verma,
and a “police disability pension status evaluation” conducted by Dr. Peter Orris on July 7, 2014.
¶ 26 Dr. Verma’s report stated that he had conducted an independent medical examination of
Salcedo’s left shoulder and right knee. Dr. Verma opined that Salcedo’s right knee injury was
causally related to the motor vehicle accident but would not alone prevent him from returning to
full duty. Dr. Verma also opined that Officer Salcedo’s shoulder injury was causally related to the
5
As earlier noted, plaintiff’s original application to the Board sought a “compensation annuity.”
Consistent with plaintiff’s counsel’s characterization of the request as one for “supplemental annuity,”
throughout the proceedings, the Board characterized the request as such. On appeal, plaintiff argues error
in the Board’s denial of a “supplemental annuity.”
-8-
No. 1-22-0728
accident, and that after surgery and physical therapy, Salcedo would be able to return to “at least
a medium duty position” and would have “normal ability to protect and discharge his weapon as
well[,] as he does possess the current ability to ambulate immediately.” However, Dr. Verma
cautioned that Salcedo “may require restrictions with regard to the left shoulder[,] specifically with
regard to overhead strength or function” and at the time of examination, he had “not reached
maximum medical improvement.”
¶ 27 Dr. Orris’s evaluation indicated that Salcedo’s memory was continuing to improve and that
his vertigo issues were being helped by medication. However, Dr. Orris observed that Salcedo was
still suffering from headaches and residual pain from his injuries, for which he took various
medications. Dr. Orris further observed that Salcedo’s neurologist had reported that he “ha[d]
lasting brain damage.” Dr. Orris opined that Salcedo remained “disabled due to problems resulting
from his on-duty motor vehicle accident in 2008” and that he “remain[ed] under active therapy of
his neurologist.” Dr. Orris further reported that Salcedo also had diabetes, hypertension, and
hypercholesterolemia.
¶ 28 2. Plaintiff’s Testimony
¶ 29 Plaintiff’s testimony was detailed and extensive. We recite only a portion of the more
salient aspects of it here. Plaintiff testified that, to her understanding, her husband was awarded
duty disability benefits in 2010. Plaintiff testified that her husband had enjoyed being a police
officer and wanted to return to duty.
¶ 30 As to her husband’s memory issues, plaintiff testified that they continued from the date of
injury to the date of his death and that sometimes he could not remember her or their children. He
also could not remember “basic things that he would do in his daily life,” such as how to put on
his shoes and being able to dress himself without being reminded to do so. Plaintiff further testified
-9-
No. 1-22-0728
that she could never leave her husband alone at home, because on one occasion, he had been in the
kitchen, turned on, and failed to turn off the stove burners.
¶ 31 Plaintiff testified that her husband also suffered from dizziness from the date of injury to
the date of his death and that it affected his ability to stand and walk. He would also get “migraine-
type” headaches approximately four to five times a week and took monthly prescribed medication
to alleviate them.
¶ 32 Plaintiff testified that her husband would complain about pain in his left clavicle, right
knee, and lower back about four times a week until the day he died. Plaintiff stated that Salcedo
could only walk about halfway down the block with his walker before he would start complaining
of back or knee pain, or he would have dizzy spells when walking. His pain medications included
Tramadol, Naxproxen, Ibuprofen, Tylenol, and Hydrodocodone, which would be tapered off on
occasion. However, in 2016 or 2017, plaintiff testified that her husband’s liver condition started to
worsen, and the doctors took him off Tramadol.
¶ 33 Plaintiff bathed and showered him daily, and when he used the bathroom, she would stand
in the doorway to make sure he did not fall over. Plaintiff dressed him and cooked for him and
noted that she would have to place him in a chair and use a strap to keep him in place as he would
otherwise fall over. Sometimes she would have to feed him as his hands shook while he ate.
Plaintiff further testified that her husband’s activities were limited after his injury. His hobbies
before his injury included boxing and watching antique car shows, and after his injury, he would
watch such events on television.
¶ 34 On cross-examination, plaintiff testified that Dr. Maday had treated her husband for
orthopedic injuries, with the last visit sometime between 2012 and 2014 or 2015. She stated that
Dr. Laluya had also treated him for pain and had removed the staples and stitches from her
- 10 -
No. 1-22-0728
husband’s head. Her husband also attended physical therapy upon Dr. Laluya’s recommendation.
Plaintiff testified that her husband also saw Dr. Kayali, the family physician, and Dr. Fiolio, a
gastroenterologist. Her husband had also been treated for his head trauma by various neurologists
at Loyola Hospital, with the last visit either in 2012 or 2015. Plaintiff testified that her husband
passed away at Rush Hospital, where he had previously been accepted in June 2018 to participate
in a liver transplant program.
¶ 35 3. Dr. Peter Orris’s Testimony
¶ 36 The Board called Dr. Orris, the Board’s examining physician. He was shown a copy of his
report previously introduced into evidence and confirmed that he performed an annual independent
medical examination of Salcedo on behalf of the Board on or about July 17, 2014. He did not
examine him further after this visit.
¶ 37 Dr. Orris testified, within a reasonable amount of medical certainty, that Salcedo was still
disabled from his motor vehicle accident. He testified that Salcedo was still having memory
problems, though he had reported improvement. Salcedo was also still suffering from dizziness,
and was taking medication for it. He also still had some of the same musculoskeletal injuries that
he had sustained from the accident, despite having surgery. Dr. Orris stated that Salcedo’s “main
disabling factor” was his central nervous system problems, which were “undoubtedly permanent.”
Dr. Orris further testified that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the motor vehicle
accident rendered Salcedo unable to return to duty as a Chicago police officer.
¶ 38 Dr. Orris testified, over objection, that he had reviewed various medical reports regarding
Salcedo’s death, which indicated that his death was caused by hepatic cirrhosis, liver cirrhosis, and
swelling of the blood vessels in his esophagus, which was caused by the hepatic cirrhosis. Dr. Orris
- 11 -
No. 1-22-0728
testified that it was not clear from the medical reports how these conditions came to be, and he
could not render an independent opinion on the cause of death.
¶ 39 C. The Board’s Decision
¶ 40 At closing argument, plaintiff’s counsel was again asked by the hearing officer as to
whether the Code’s “provision regarding mandatory retirement age *** ha[d] any effect on the
widow’s ability to come back after that retirement to seek enhanced benefits.” Plaintiff’s counsel
responded that he did not believe the mandatory retirement age had any effect on receiving such
benefits. One of the Board members then inquired as to whether Salcedo had ever applied for “total
and permanent disability benefits” pursuant to the Code. Plaintiff responded that she did not know.
¶ 41 Immediately thereafter, the Board denied plaintiff’s claim by a vote of 6 to 2 and issued a
written order memorializing its decision on May 27, 2021. As an initial matter, the Board stated
that, to be eligible for a widow’s supplemental annuity, plaintiff needed to establish that the death
of her husband was either a direct result of his injuries of the 2008 motor vehicle accident or that
his injury was of such character as to prevent him from subsequently resuming service as a
policeman. The Board further noted that Salcedo had turned 65 years old on October 29, 2015, and
thus, in accordance with section 5-154(c) of the Code, his disability payments had terminated at
age 63 and then converted to a lifetime annuity benefit, of which he had been in receipt to the date
of his death.
¶ 42 Turning to the merits of the claim, the Board observed that it was “faced with conflicting
statutory provisions” and that there was no direct authority on point with this issue. Ultimately,
the Board determined that plaintiff was ineligible to receive a supplemental annuity because,
regardless of his disability, Salcedo could not have returned to service after he was mandatorily
retired in 2015. According to the Board, section 5-154(c) of the Code was “clear and
- 12 -
No. 1-22-0728
unambiguous” that an officer who was subject to disability payments was “mandatorily retired” at
age 63, and thus, Salcedo’s “inability to return to duty” was not a result of his disability but rather
his mandatory retirement. Moreover, the Board continued, there was “no exception allowing for
[a] Supplemental Widow’s Annuity Benefit after mandatory retirement.” As such, reasoned the
Board, granting plaintiff a supplemental annuity after her husband’s retirement would render an
“absurd result” and cause a “monumental financial impact” to the fund, which “surely the
Legislature did not intend *** when it enacted [section] 5-144(c).”
¶ 43 Accordingly, the Board concluded that “Salcedo’s mandatory retirement at age 63, just
prior to his death, precluded him from resuming service as a Chicago police officer,” which
prohibited his widow from receiving a supplemental annuity benefit. As such, the Board did not
address whether plaintiff had met her burden in showing that Salcedo’s injuries were of such a
character as to prevent him from subsequently resuming service as a policeman.
¶ 44 D. Administrative Review
¶ 45 On June 22, 2021, plaintiff timely filed a complaint for administrative review of the
Board’s decision, which alleged that the Board’s decision was contrary to law, legally erroneous,
an abuse of discretion, against the manifest weight of the evidence, and arbitrary and capricious.
On or about July 27, 2021, the Board filed its answer consisting of the underlying administrative
record.
¶ 46 On March 8, 2021, the circuit court heard oral argument on the complaint for administrative
review and took the matter under advisement. As an initial matter, the circuit court determined that
the correct standard of review was “clearly erroneous,” as the issue was one of both law and fact.
However, the court noted that it would reach the same conclusion under a de novo standard of
review, and as such analyzed plaintiff’s complaint under both standards. Ultimately, the court
- 13 -
No. 1-22-0728
found that “mandatory retirement [was] an intervening event that preclude[d] supplemental
annuity under [section] [5-]144(c).” Accordingly, on April 22, 2021, the court issued a written
order, denying plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff timely filed her appeal. 6
¶ 47 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 48 A. Standard of Review
¶ 49 The parties dispute the standard of review to be applied to the Board’s decision. Our review
of administrative proceedings is based on the decision of the administrative agency, rather than
that of the circuit court. Roselle Police Pension Board v. Village of Roselle, 232 Ill. 2d 546, 551-
52 (2009). Judicial review of the Board’s decision is governed by article III of the Code of Civil
Procedure. See 40 ILCS 5/3-148 (West 2020); 735 ILCS 5/art. III (West 2020).
¶ 50 “An administrative agency’s findings of fact are deemed prima facie true and correct.”
Swoope v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 323 Ill. App.
3d 526, 528 (2001); see also 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2020). “Determinations as to weight of the
evidence and credibility of the witnesses are matters left to the agency and will not be disturbed
on review unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Swoope, 323 Ill. App. 3d
at 529. “A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion
is clearly evident.” Id. “If the record contains any evidence to support the agency’s decision, it
should be affirmed.” Id.
6
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303 (eff. July 1, 2017) provides that a notice of appeal must be filed
with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment that the party seeks to
appeal. Here, the circuit court issued its final order on plaintiff’s complaint on April 22, 2022. Accordingly,
notice of appeal was due on May 22, 2022, which fell on a Sunday. Plaintiff’s notice, filed on Monday,
May 23, 2022, 31 days after the final decision, was nonetheless timely. See In re Estate of Malloy, 96 Ill.
App. 3d 1020, 1025 (1981) (Sundays and legal holidays are not counted for purposes of computing the 30-
day filing period for notices of appeal); see also 5 ILCS 70/1.11 (West 2020). Accordingly, our jurisdiction
over this appeal is proper.
- 14 -
No. 1-22-0728
¶ 51 However, an administrative agency’s conclusions of law are afforded less deference and
are reviewed on a de novo basis. Id. “When the agency’s determination involves a mixed question
of fact and law, the applicable standard of review is the clearly erroneous standard, which falls
between a manifest weight of the evidence standard and de novo review, so as to give some
deference to the agency’s experience and expertise.” Id. “An agency is presumed to make informed
judgments based on its experience and expertise and, thus, substantial deference is given to its
interpretation of a statute.” Id.¶ 52 Plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in applying the “clearly erroneous” standard
because the issue before the circuit court had been purely one of statutory interpretation, where the
facts before the Board were undisputed, and the Board did not address whether Salcedo had been
permanently disabled, citing City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d
191 (1998), AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380(2001), and Summers v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago,
2013 IL App (1st) 121345, in support.
¶ 53 The Board disagrees, arguing that the circuit court correctly analyzed the Board’s decision
under the clearly erroneous standard because the administrative record presented a mixed question
of law and fact. Specifically, the Board contends that the circuit court reviewed “unique facts”
when analyzing the pertinent parts of the Code, such as Salcedo’s receipt of duty disability benefits
until his retirement, that his disability benefits converted into a retirement annuity thereafter, and
that he passed away at age 65 for unrelated medical reasons. The Board asserts that, even if the
facts are undisputed, it nevertheless took in evidence and did not simply interpret the Code purely
on its language.
- 15 -
No. 1-22-0728
¶ 54 We agree with the plaintiff that this case presents a legal question that requires de novo
review. Here, the Board did not reach the issue as to whether plaintiff had met her evidentiary
burden in demonstrating her eligibility to receive a widow’s supplemental annuity, which would
have required the Board to make factual determinations, such as weighing documentary evidence
and witness testimony. Instead, the Board’s analysis hinged on the construction of sections 5-144
and 5-154 of the Code, as applied to undisputed facts, such as Salcedo’s retirement upon turning
63. 7 See Roselle Police Pension Board, 232 Ill. 2d at 552 (when the salient facts of a case are not
in dispute, the issue before the court is one of statutory construction and therefore de novo);
Summers, 2013 IL App (1st) 121345, ¶ 14 (when facts are undisputed and the appeal concerns the
interpretation of the statute, the standard of review is de novo); see also Bertucci v. Retirement
Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 351 Ill. App. 3d 368, 370-371 (2004)
(when resolution of case depends, not on evidence heard by the board or even application of those
facts to the law, but purely under the legal question of the proper interpretation of statutory
provisions regarding annuity benefits for widows of firefighters, our review is de novo). Thus, we
proceed to our analysis under a de novo standard. However, we would reach the same conclusion
in this case regardless of the applicable standard.
¶ 55 B. Whether the Code Prohibits the Granting of a Widow’s Supplemental Annuity
Following Mandatory Retirement
¶ 56 The issue on appeal is what effect, if any, did Salcedo’s mandatory retirement, and
subsequent cessation of his disability benefits, have on plaintiff’s eligibility to receive a widow’s
7
We also observe that, although not directly on point, in cases involving whether an officer’s
disability arose from an “act of duty” and the facts are virtually undisputed, the interpretation of the term
“act of duty” has been characterized as an issue of statutory construction, and is therefore reviewed de novo.
See Sarkis v. City of Des Plaines, 378 Ill. App. 3d 833, 836-37 (2008) (collecting cases).
- 16 -
No. 1-22-0728
supplemental annuity. Plaintiff, citing Swoope, 323 Ill. App. 3d 526, contends that Salcedo’s
retirement is irrelevant, and that the focus of the Code is whether the officer was permanently
disabled from returning to duty. The Board disagrees, because, according to its interpretation of
the Code, Salcedo no longer qualified as a “disabled officer” or “policeman,” as his disability
benefits had converted into a lifetime annuity under section 5-154(c). The Board further contends
that Swoope does not address the issue of how mandatory retirement affects the granting of
supplemental annuities under section 5-144(c). As such, the Board urges us to review the Code in
its entirety as plaintiff’s isolated interpretation would create absurd results that would subject the
fund to “monumental exposure.”
¶ 57 In this appeal we are tasked with construing various provisions of the Code. It is well
established that “[t]he primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the
legislature’s intent,” where “[t]he best evidence of [which] is the language in the statute itself,
which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 530. “To do so, words and phrases
should not be construed in isolation, but must be interpreted in light of other relevant provisions
of the statute.” Id. “[E]ach provision [must be] construed in connection with every other section,”
and “[i]f legislative intent can be discerned from the statutory language, this intent must prevail,
and no resort to other tools of statutory construction is necessary.” Roselle Police Pension Board,
232 Ill. 2d at 552.
¶ 58 Plaintiff points out that the terms contained within pension codes, such as the one before
us now, should be liberally construed in favor of the applicant in order to effectuate the purpose
of the statute. See Sullivan v. Retirement Board of Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago,
267 Ill. App. 3d 965, 970-71 (1994). However, this principle creates no exception to the rules of
statutory construction. See Roselle Police Pension Board, 232 Ill. 2d at 552. If legislative intent is
- 17 -
No. 1-22-0728
obvious within the pension act, this “liberal construction canon does not authorize the judiciary”
to create new meaning. Id. at 553. Further, although a reviewing court is not bound by an agency’s
interpretation of the statute, the Board’s reading of the Code “ ‘remains relevant where there is a
reasonable debate about the meaning of the statute.’ ” Sarkis v. City of Des Plaines, 378 Ill. App.
3d 833, 837 (2008) (quoting Elementary School District 159 v. Schiller, 221 Ill. 2d 130, 142
(2006)).
¶ 59 1. The Relationship Between Compensation and Supplemental Annuities
¶ 60 As a preliminary matter, we must first address a threshold issue that we believe the parties
overlooked in this litigation. Section 5-144 of the Code, titled “Death from injury in the
performance of acts of duty,” governs disbursement of both compensation and supplemental
annuities. 40 ILCS 5/5-144 (West 2020). Section 5-144(a) provides that a compensation annuity
may be awarded to a widow whose deceased husband, “had he lived,” would have attained age 63.
Id. § 5-144(a). Section 5-144(b) then provides that, “[u]pon termination of the compensation
annuity, ‘supplemental annuity’ shall become payable to the widow” based on the amount the
policeman would have been receiving “when he attained age 63.” (Emphasis added.) Id. § 5-
144(b). Based our reading of these two provisions, it appears that receipt of the supplemental
annuity is conditioned upon the widow’s eligibility, entitlement, and actual receipt of the
compensation annuity.
¶ 61 Prior versions of section 5-144 also support this interpretation. The 1969 version of the
same provision is very similar, where the phrase “upon termination” was previously drafted as
“thereafter”:
“§ 5-144. Death from injury in the performance of acts of duty—minimum and maximum
annuity—compensation annuity and supplemental annuity. If the annuity for the widow of
- 18 -
No. 1-22-0728
a policeman whose death, on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1969,
results from injury incurred in the performance of an act or acts of duty, is not equal to the
sum hereinafter stated, ‘Compensation annuity’ equal to the difference between the annuity
and an amount equal to 75% of the policeman’s salary *** that would ordinarily have been
paid to him as though he were in active discharge of his duties shall be payable to the
widow until the policeman, had he lived, would have attained age 63. ***
Thereafter, ‘Supplemental Annuity’, equal to the difference between the annuity
for the widow and the annuity she would have received if the policeman had continued in
service at the salary in effect at his death until he attained age 63, shall be payable to her.” 8
(Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 108½, ¶ 5-144.
¶ 62 The record does not reflect that plaintiff was ever in receipt of a compensation annuity.
Indeed, in plaintiff’s original claim to the Board, she had specifically stated that she was receiving
a “standard widow’s annuity” and was applying for a compensation annuity. Further, the hearing
transcript indicates that the Board had been prepared to hear evidence regarding a claim for a
compensation annuity, and it was plaintiff’s counsel who then stated in his opening remarks that
plaintiff was actually seeking a “supplemental annuity.” Thereafter, the Board denied plaintiff’s
request and characterized it as one for a “supplemental annuity.” Further, the parties have
continued to argue throughout the duration of this litigation that plaintiff was only seeking a
supplemental annuity.
8
The 1963 versions of the statute also contained the “thereafter” language when discussing
supplemental annuities for widows. See 1963 Ill. Laws 161; see also 1963 Ill. Laws 3016. The 1995 version
of the statute begins using the phrase “Upon termination” rather than “thereafter.” See Pub. Act 89-12, § 5
(eff. Apr. 20, 1995) (amending 40 ILCS 5/5-144).
- 19 -
No. 1-22-0728
¶ 63 If in fact plaintiff was solely seeking a supplemental annuity, then it appears that her claim
should have been denied at the outset and prior to any determination that the retirement age
precluded entitlement to such a benefit. Although it is true that plaintiff would have to meet the
same evidentiary burden as to either a compensation or supplemental annuity with regard to
establishing the nature of her husband’s injuries, she would have to go one step further for a
supplemental annuity, namely, to prove that she had already received a compensation annuity as
defined in section 5-144(a) and further expanded upon in section 5-144(c). Here, plaintiff did not
show that she had been in receipt of a compensation annuity, and the plain language of the statute
indicates that a supplemental annuity may only become payable “[u]pon termination of the
compensation annuity.” 40 ILCS 5/5-144(b) (West 2020). Only after that threshold requirement
was met would the Board then be able to assess the claim for a supplemental annuity under section
5-144(c), which requires a widow to show that her husband’s death “was a direct result of the
injury, or [that] the injury was of such character as to prevent him from subsequently resuming
service as a policeman.” Id. § 5-144(c).
¶ 64 Accordingly, in determining whether plaintiff was eligible for a supplemental annuity, we
believe that plaintiff’s claim was unsuccessful at that threshold issue. Nevertheless, as we discuss
below, plaintiffs’ appeal still fails even on the merits of the arguments raised.
¶ 65 C. Whether Salcedo’s Retirement Precluded His Widow’s Receipt of Such Annuities
¶ 66 As noted by both parties, our court has had few occasions to interpret section 5-144 of the
Code, as there appears to have been a lack of substantive changes to the provision since its initial
- 20 -
No. 1-22-0728
passage in 1963. 9 However, we have had occasion to do so with regard to section 5-144(c) in
Swoope, 323 Ill. App. 3d 526.
¶ 67 There, the plaintiff was the widow of a police officer who received duty disability benefits
following an on-duty accident, until his death from unrelated causes. Id. at 527-28. 10 The plaintiff,
after receiving both a widow’s annuity and death benefit, applied for a widow’s compensation
annuity pursuant to section 5-144. Id. at 528. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Board
determined that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden on her claim because she did not present
any medical testimony or evidence regarding her husband’s health or ability to return to work at
time of death. Id. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Board’s decision was in error because,
according to the plaintiff, the widow of an officer who dies while receiving duty disability benefits
and has not returned to work since the injury is automatically entitled to a widow’s compensation
annuity based on the fact that the officer had been receiving disability benefits at the time of death.
Id. at 529.
¶ 68 We first identified the purpose of section 5-144 and determined that this provision of the
Code was specifically intended to benefit widows by providing “extra compensation, above the
regular annuity determined in [other] sections, to [a] select group of widows.” Id. at 529-30. We
stated that “the legislature clearly intended only widows whose husbands died as a direct result of
injuries sustained in the performance of acts of duty to benefit from compensation and
supplemental annuities.” Id. at 531. Therefore, section 5-144(c) was a “narrow expansion of this
9
In 1969, section 5-144 was amended to modify the retirement age from age 57 to 63. See Pub. Act
76-1387, § 1 (eff. Sept. 17, 1969) (amending Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 108½, ¶ 5-144).
10
Swoope does not expressly indicate that the police officer therein was under the age of 63, but
there is no mention in the opinion that he was close to, near, or at retirement age. Rather, the opinion
indicates that he was still receiving disability benefits prior to his death, which he could not have received
if he had been at or above retirement age per the Code. Swoope, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 528; see also 40 ILCS
5/5-154(a) (West 2020).
- 21 -
No. 1-22-0728
section, allowing widows of officers whose injuries were of such character as to prevent them from
subsequently resuming service as policemen to also receive this extra compensation.” Id.
¶ 69 We then rejected plaintiff’s interpretation of section 5-144(c), in that she was automatically
entitled to receive a compensation annuity simply because her husband had previously received
duty disability benefits. Id. We looked to the plain language of section 5-144(c), focusing
specifically on the word “subsequently” contained therein. Id. We determined that the term:
“refer[red] to an injury incurred in the performance of an act of duty which prevents the
officer from resuming service as a policeman subsequent to, or following, that injury. If, at
anytime after the injury, the officer can or could possibly resume his duties as a policeman,
his widow is excluded from receiving compensation or supplemental annuities. Because
the statute does not define an ending point to this time period, we interpret the phrase to
mean that the injury was so severe, and of such a character, as to prevent the officer from
ever resuming service as a policeman. Thus, it is the officer’s injury, and not his death,
which establishes whether the officer would be able to subsequently, and at some point,
resume his duties with the police department.” (Emphasis added.) Id.
¶ 70 Thus, in order to prove eligibility for a widow’s compensation annuity, the Swoope plaintiff
had to establish that either (1) her husband’s death was a direct result of the injury he sustained
while in the performance of an act of duty or (2) his injury had been of such a character as to
prevent him from subsequently resuming work as a policeman. Id. at 529. The first condition could
not be met, thus we looked to the second. Id. at 531. Under the second condition, we determined
that a plaintiff needed to “establish[,] with medical evidence and testimony[,] that her husband’s
injury, but for his death, would have prevented him from subsequently, or ever, resuming service
with the police department.” (Emphasis added.) Id. Although we agreed with the Board’s
- 22 -
No. 1-22-0728
interpretation of the provision, we nevertheless determined that the record was not sufficiently
developed to show whether the plaintiff’s burden had been met, and we remanded the case for a
new evidentiary hearing. Id.
¶ 71 Swoope is helpful to contextualize the intent and practical operation of section 5-144(c),
but it does not address the central issue before us today. For instance, in Swoope, the plaintiff’s
husband appears to have died prior to retirement age, and the annuity at issue was compensation,
not supplemental. Further, although the Swoope court noted that “the statute does not define an
ending point to th[e] time period” of when an “officer can or could possibly resume his duties”
and thus prevent his widow from receiving either compensation or supplemental annuities, that
issue was not explored by the court. Id. Thus, to determine whether mandatory retirement
forecloses the possibility of a supplemental annuity for a widow whose husband died after age 63,
we must return to the plain language of the statute.
¶ 72 Based on our review of the relevant provisions of the statute, we agree with the Board that
Salcedo’s mandatory retirement precluded the plaintiff from receiving a widow’s supplemental
annuity pursuant to the Code. Sections 5-144(a) and (b), which govern compensation and
supplemental annuities for widows of deceased officers, apply to circumstances in which an officer
died prior to retirement, not after. See 40 ILCS 5/5-144(a) (West 2020) (compensation annuity
shall be paid to a widow based on what the police officer “would ordinarily have been paid *** as
though he were in active discharge of his duties *** until the policeman, had he lived, would have
attained age 63” (emphasis added)). Put another way, per section 5-144(a), a widow is eligible for
a compensation annuity only if her husband’s death resulted from a duty-related injury prior to
age 63, which is before the age of retirement. In such a case, the compensation annuity terminates
on the date the officer would have turned 63, had he lived. After the termination of a compensation
- 23 -
No. 1-22-0728
annuity, the widow is then eligible to receive a supplemental annuity in the amount the officer’s
salary would have been had he lived to retirement age, again age 63. Id. § 5-144(b) (supplemental
annuities shall equal the amount that “the policeman would have been receiving when he attained
age 63 if the policeman had continued in service at the same rank” (emphasis added)).
¶ 73 Section 5-144 does not address the awarding of such benefits to widows of officers if the
officer died after age 63. This makes sense based on the complete reading of the statute. Sections
5-144(a) and 5-144(b) contemplate the calculation of the amount of the annuities based on the
theoretical and continuous service of the deceased police officer up until age 63, which is the age
when the officer is no longer able to work for the department. Thus, as noted by the court in
Swoope, such annuities are meant to serve as “extra compensation” to a widow whose husband
could no longer receive standard compensation from the department, and who perhaps otherwise
would be eligible for duty disability benefits that would cease upon age 63, as they did for Salcedo
here. See id. § 5-154(c) (“Duty disability benefit shall be payable until the policeman becomes age
63 or would have been retired by operation of law, whichever is later ***.”).
¶ 74 Nevertheless, plaintiff argues that the age of 63 as discussed within this section is of no
import, as the mandatory retirement age for police officers in Illinois differs based on location.
Thus, according to plaintiff, there are jurisdictions where Salcedo might have been able to work
after age 63, but for his disability. 11 But this argument appears misplaced, as plaintiff may not have
been eligible to receive a compensation or supplemental annuity from the Chicago Police
11
The Board argues that plaintiff’s argument on this point is waived, as it was never presented to
the circuit court in prior briefing or oral argument. We interpret plaintiff’s argument on this point as simply
an attempt to support her overall position that mandatory retirement should not bar her eligibility for a
widow’s supplemental benefit, which was raised below. We further observe that neither party had the
opportunity to adequately discuss this issue prior to the Board’s vote, and the circuit court was the first
tribunal to hear any sort of developed argument on this issue.
- 24 -
No. 1-22-0728
Department, which are annuities based upon the presence of a debilitating injury, if she or her
husband were in receipt of any such income from other jurisdictions. Per section 5-216 of the
Code:
“When annuity or benefit not payable. Except as may be otherwise provided herein, no
annuity, pension or other benefit shall be paid to a policeman or widow *** by virtue of a
temporary appointment; and no disability benefit shall be paid for any period during which
he is receiving wages or compensation from any statutory body supported in whole or in
part by taxation; and no annuity shall be paid to any policeman or widow who has received
a refund of salary deductions or other contributions unless such amount *** shall have
been repaid into the fund ***.” Id. § 5-216.
¶ 75 A similar limitation is outlined in section 5-157 of the Code, where a police officer is not
entitled to receive any such disability benefits if the officer assumes regular employment for
compensation or if the officer re-enters public service in any capacity. See id. § 5-157(c), (f).
¶ 76 Further, as a matter of policy, the Board points out that the awarding of a supplemental
annuity to a widow whose husband died after retirement may also be unworkable. The Board
reasons that, because Salcedo was no longer in service, he was not required to submit to mandatory
physical examinations per section 5-156 of the Code in order to determine whether he was still
eligible for certain benefits and annuities based on his disability. Id. § 5-156; see also id. § 5-157
(policeman not eligible to receive duty disability benefits if he refuses to submit to physical
examination). This is significant, because the record does not appear to indicate that the Board
ever made a finding of a permanent disability as applied to Salcedo. See id. § 5-154(a)(iii). As
such, according to the Board, opening the door to widows of police officers who died after
retirement would expose the fund to administrative and financial difficulties.
- 25 -
No. 1-22-0728
¶ 77 Although the Board’s concern is not conclusive to the resolution of this issue, it is not
unjustified. Here, plaintiff did not file her request for benefits until 2021, about three years after
her husband’s death. There is no dispute that the weight of the medical evidence showed that
Salcedo was either permanently disabled, still disabled, or, at best, in a position to return to light
desk duty. But following Salcedo’s retirement, there do not appear to be any medical reports or
records in evidence that discussed Salcedo’s condition after his retirement. It is true that plaintiff
provided affidavits to support her contention that Salcedo’s condition had been the same as when
he had retired, but even those affidavits relied on medical reports and evaluations conducted prior
to Salcedo reaching age 63. Thus, in the most extreme circumstances, and under plaintiff’s
interpretation of the Code, the Board would be required to assess a request for a supplemental
annuity based on potentially numerous years of missing medical records, where its appointed
expert physician would be only able to make determinations based on their review of other doctors’
conclusions, as was done here. We do not believe that this could have been the legislature’s intent,
based on its requirement of yearly medical examinations for receipt of disability payments, in
tandem with the Code’s heavy emphasis on the age of 63 as the determining factor as to what
amount and when an officer’s widow could be eligible for a compensation or supplemental
annuity.
¶ 78 Finally, plaintiff argues that the circuit court’s reliance on Bertucci, 351 Ill. App. 3d 368,
was misplaced, as the firemen’s pension code with regard to widow’s supplemental annuities is
distinguishable from the Code here. We note that the circuit court only mentioned Bertucci in
passing in its order denying plaintiffs’ complaint for administrative review. Further, our review is
of the Board’s decision, and while potentially informative, we do not review the decision of the
- 26 -
No. 1-22-0728
circuit court. See Roselle Police Pension Board, 232 Ill. 2d at 551-52. Even so, given the potential
similarities of the pension code as applied to firefighters and police officers, we examine the case.
¶ 79 In Bertucci, which was decided three years after Swoope, the plaintiff was the widow of a
permanently disabled firefighter who received duty disability benefits following an on-duty
accident. Bertucci, 351 Ill. App. 3d at 369. The firefighter never returned to work and later died
from metastatic lung cancer. Id. The firefighter’s widow applied for a widow’s duty related annuity
with the firefighter pension board, and the board granted and denied in part her request, as it
determined that the firefighter had not died while in the performance of an act of duty. Id. at 369-
70. The widow filed a complaint for administrative review, and the circuit court reversed the
board’s decision. Id. at 370. The board appealed, and the plaintiff’s arguments mirrored those of
the plaintiff in Swoope, namely that she was entitled to a duty-related annuity benefit because a
firefighter who is permanently disabled during his course of duty, but dies without returning to
work, should still be treated as a firefighter who was killed in the line of duty or from injuries
received directly within the line of duty. Id. at 370, 372. Notably, as in Swoope, it did not appear
that the firefighter had died after retirement, but rather, prior.
¶ 80 In its analysis, our court cited Swoope favorably when assessing the relevant provisions of
the firefighter code, finding that it and the police code were “nearly identical.” Id. at 371. Thus,
we adopted the holding and reasoning of Swoope, determining that the firefighter’s widow had to
meet the same evidentiary burden under section 6-140 of the firefighter code as required under
section 5-144(c) of the police code. Id. at 373-74. We further agreed that plaintiff was entitled to
the benefit “upon the fire fighter’s death and prior to his reaching the age of retirement.”
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 379. We further observed, in a footnote, that:
- 27 -
No. 1-22-0728
“[w]hen each fire fighter would have reached the age of mandatory retirement, the
families would have been treated identically, each receiving 50% of [the] active salary. 40
ILCS 5/6-141.1 (West 2000). Thus, the added financial burden on the [b]oard spans the
years from the fire fighter’s death to the time he would have reached mandatory retirement
age. When the fire fighter dies while on duty disability after reaching mandatory retirement
age, no additional widow’s annuity benefit is paid.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 378 n.2.
¶ 81 Notably, the firefighter code does not appear to distinguish between “compensation” and
“supplemental” annuities in the same way as does the police code. See 40 ILCS 5/6-140 (West
2020). Section 6-140 solely provides for a general annuity to a widow based on the firefighter’s
death while on duty. Id. 12 Nevertheless, although based on a different article of the pension code,
Bertucci’s discussion as to the effect of mandatory retirement in relation to the payment of a
widow’s annuity benefit is persuasive, given the other similarities of the provisions and the intent
of the legislature in both scenarios.
¶ 82 However, plaintiff continues to split hairs, arguing that there is a significant difference
between the firefighter code and the police code, where, under the former, a firefighter widow is
limited to receiving a supplemental annuity up until the date of a firefighter’s retirement, whereas
under the police code, a widow is not so limited. We do not agree with that interpretation, and to
the extent that there are any differences between the two, they are not dispositive.
¶ 83 Plaintiff’s cited section of the firefighter pension code, section 6-141.1, provides that the
widow of a firefighter, who died while receiving a retirement annuity, shall only receive an annuity
at a specific percentage. See id. § 6-141.1(a), (c) (“(a) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this
12
It appears that any previous reference to “compensation” or “supplemental” annuities were
stricken from the statute. See Pub. Act 92-50, § 5 (eff. July 12, 2001) (amending 40 ILCS 5/6-140).
- 28 -
No. 1-22-0728
Article, the widow of a fireman who dies *** while receiving a retirement annuity *** may elect
to have the amount of widow’s annuity calculated in accordance with this Section. *** (c) ***
[T]he widow’s annuity shall be equal to 50% of the amount of such retirement annuity at the time
of *** death.”). So too exists a similar provision in the police code, where a widow’s annuity is
capped at a certain percentage if she is the widow of a deceased policeman who received a
retirement annuity at time of death. Id. § 5-136.1(c). Plaintiff argues that the distinguishing
features of the police code are found in section 5-136.1(a), which provides that a police officer’s
widow may choose an alternative calculation for annuity “[n]otwithstanding the other provisions
of this Article” (id. § 5-136.1(a)), as well as in subsection (d), which states that the provisions of
section 5-136.1 “shall in no way limit any annuity otherwise payable under this Article” (id. § 5-
136.1(d)).
¶ 84 Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. Section 5-136.1 provides for an alternative calculation
of a general widow’s annuity, which is discussed throughout other sections of the Code, such as
in sections 5-134, 5-135, and 5-136. See id. §§ 5-134 to 5-136. Section 5-136.1 simply reiterates
that a widow may still be eligible for other annuities within the statute. However, just because a
widow may not be prohibited from seeking other annuities does not mean she is in fact entitled to
receive them. This is demonstrated by the fact that, at least with regard to section 5-144(c), a
widow must still meet the individual requirements of a compensation or supplemental annuity in
order to receive such benefits.
¶ 85 Accordingly, notwithstanding our threshold determination that plaintiff could have never
been eligible for a supplemental annuity because she never received the requisite compensation
annuity as required by the Code, we agree with the Board’s ultimate conclusion. Salcedo’s
mandatory retirement was the unavoidable and intervening reason that plaintiff did not qualify for
- 29 -
No. 1-22-0728
a widow’s supplemental annuity, even if the evidence may have established that Salcedo was
permanently disabled from his on-duty injury at the time of his death. Simply put, Salcedo was
statutorily prohibited from returning to work at age 63 for purposes of the Chicago-based pension
fund, and section 5-144(c) only contemplates the awarding of such benefits to widows of officers
who have died from on-duty injuries or whose injuries resulted in permanent disability before the
age of 63. As such, we do not find that the Board erred in denying plaintiff’s application.
¶ 86 Because we dispose of the appeal on this threshold basis, we need not reach the secondary
issue of whether plaintiff met her burden under section 5-144(c) in proving that Salcedo’s duty-
related injuries had permanently prevented him from resuming police duty. 13
¶ 87 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 88 For the reasons stated, we affirm.
¶ 89 Affirmed.
13
Moreover, even if we were able to reach this issue, the Board did not rule on this matter during
the evidentiary hearing. As such, we would deem the record as insufficiently developed for purposes of our
review.
- 30 -
No. 1-22-0728
Salcedo v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago,
2023 IL App (1st) 220728Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 2021-CH-
3035; the Hon. Alison C. Conlon, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys Michael Rothmann, of Law Office of Martin L. Glink, of
for Arlington Heights, for appellant.
Appellant:
Attorneys Richard J. Reimer and Vincent C. Mancini, of Reimer Dobrovolny
for & Labardi PC, of Hinsdale, for appellee.
Appellee:
- 31 -