The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday reversed an appellate court ruling that ordered a duty disability pension for a Chicago police officer injured in an on-duty crash, holding that a city pension board acted within its discretion when it denied the claim.
The case, Moreland v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, centers on Donald Moreland sustained hip and lower back injuries after striking a parked car and a tree while responding to an emergency call in 2017. Although he initially returned to full-duty work, Mr. Moreland later sought treatment for chronic pain, underwent hip surgery and eventually applied for a duty disability pension in 2022.
The retirement board denied the application, crediting the opinion of the board-appointed orthopedic surgeon, who found Mr. Moreland capable of performing full police duties after reaching maximum medical improvement.
Mr. Moreland appealed, and the Illinois Appellate Court sided with him, relying heavily on the Illinois Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Kouzoukas v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago. In that case, the court held that a police officer who could work only under medically documented restrictions — but was never offered a position accommodating those restrictions — was still “disabled” under the Pension Code because she was otherwise stuck in an untenable “catch-22.”
In its unanimous ruling reinstating the retirement board’s original determination, the state Supreme Court rejected the comparison of the two cases. In Kouzoukas, every medical professional agreed the officer was unable to perform full-duty police work. By contrast, the board in Mr. Moreland’s case expressly found, based on “competent” medical examination, that he could return to full, unrestricted duty.
“Applying Kouzoukas here would effectively mandate a disability pension whenever an officer is not offered a position within the department,” the court wrote, adding that such a rule “has no foundation in the statute.”
The decision also resolved longstanding confusion about a key statutory provision requiring “proof of disability” from a board-appointed physician. In ruling in favor of Mr. Moreland, the appellate court had applied a 2000 decision, Nowak v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, to conclude that a disability claim must fail when the board’s own doctor does not certify disability. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation, holding that while the board must receive an opinion from its appointed doctor, the board — not any individual physician — is the ultimate arbiter of disability.
The high court explicitly overruled Nowak, aligning disability standards for police and firefighter pension funds and reaffirming that boards retain discretion to weigh conflicting medical evidence.
Despite acknowledging the “frustrating position” officers may face when the employer and pension board rely on different medical assessments, the court emphasized that changes to the statutory scheme must come from the legislature, not the judiciary.